Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The gist of the facts charged is that the victim D (the age of 55) operated the trade name “F” in Sejong City E, and the Defendant was frequently a customer with the said main points and became a friendship with the victim.

A victim borrowed KRW 10 million from G through the Defendant around September 2012, but failed to pay it until April 2013, the due date for payment.

On July 2013, at around 22:00, the Defendant argued with the victim that “the victim is not able to pay the money borrowed fromG,” and that “the victim is not able to pay the money. It is not necessary to do so. It is not necessary to do so.. It is not 100,000 won.”

During that period, the defendant had sparly committed an indecent act against the victim by force against the victim by using his own arms.

3. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a judgment in a criminal trial include the burden of proof, whether it is subjective or objective, and the establishment of facts constituting the crime must be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined with the defendant’s benefit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In order for the victim to be found guilty solely based on the victim’s statement to the extent that there is no room for doubt as to the authenticity and accuracy of the statement.