When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

At around 17:00 on January 2, 2015, the Defendant committed an indecent act by using the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her,

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness D’s legal statement (a) is somewhat inconsistent with the criminal facts, such as the statement that he/she had committed an indecent act at around 19:30 after he/she left the restaurant as already indicated in the judgment at around 17:47; however, the contents of the statement are relatively consistent and concrete if he/she comparisons with the statement made by the police. Moreover, there is no inconsistency with other evidence, such as the E’s statement that the Defendant testified to commit the above crime, and the F’s statement that he/she deemed that D resist against the above crime. Moreover, there is no circumstance that the false statement might be opened in light of the relationship with the Defendant, etc. Furthermore, there is no circumstance that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against D. In addition, the Defendant did not seem to have committed an indecent act against D, and that there was no ditch in relation to the above crime, and it is difficult to believe that G’s statement is inconsistent with F’s statement, as well as in light of the relationship with the Defendant).

1. The E’s legal statement (in comparison with the statements, etc. made at the police station, the contents of the statement are relatively consistent, specific, and inconsistent with other evidence, such as D’s statement, and there is no reason to believe that the statement is false. G does not have any circumstances to open the said statement. Although G does not have the nature of E at the time, E’s purpose is to witness the crime and immediately start the above restaurant, it is difficult to view it inconsistent with G’s statement.

1. F’s legal statement police officers have made a statement as if the person who received a claim from D was G. However, this court clearly stated that the person was the Defendant, the content of which is specific, and there is no inconsistency with other evidence, such as D’s statement and E’s statement, and the statement will be replaced by the false statement.