On September 30, 2013, at around 00:40, the Defendant, within the room of the E-art club located in Busan So-gu, Busan. At around 00:40, the Defendant: (a) caused the victim F (n, 35 years of age) who was stalking to water, and caused water to do so by mixing it with a stroke m, the lowest stroke, which was acquired by the stroke method; and (b) caused the victim who was unable to take a normal accident due to drugs in the same Gu to do so, and (c) had sexual intercourse once with the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant raped the victim, and thereby, suffered from the victim, arms, legs, etc. inception in the number of days of treatment.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

On the date and time indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 went to Defendant 1’s age club, so-called F and her so-called salking, and later came to her sexual intercourse under the agreement and her sexual intercourse under the agreement. The Defendant did not rape the F by using a salke-m, as in the instant facts charged, nor did the Defendant inflict any injury on the F in the process.

3. Determination

A. On the stroke method

(1) The instant facts charged is premised on the fact that the Defendant was recognized as having used a stroke m on September 30, 2013, the date and time indicated in the facts charged. Under the circumstances pertaining thereto, the F reported the fact of damage on January 10, 2014 when three months elapsed from September 30, 2013, the date and time indicated in the instant facts charged, and thereafter, discovered a stroke m in the stroke mstrokes, etc. through investigation.

(1) On July 17, 2014, about nine months after September 30, 2013, the result of the appraisal of the hair taken from F on July 17, 2014, and about three cm or length, about 3 cm or length, about 3 cm or 6 cm: each stroke method, (2) about 6 cm or 9 cm in length, about 9 cm or 12 cm in length, about 12 m or 12 m or Mos ( approximately 40-50 m). The result of the appraisal of the hair taken from F on July 17, 2014, was confirmed (25 m or 272 m or 17 m or 27 m or 27 m or 27 m or 20 m or m).

(2) However, in light of the following scientific grounds, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant used stroke-morm to F as stated in the facts charged.

(1) According to the results of the Madm test as seen earlier, considering that the Madm is a person with about 1§¯ in the month in which the Madm is average, the period of medication can be generally presumed to be used by F according to the length of the Madm. Therefore, the appraisal by which the Madm is detected from the Madm from the Madm to the Madmm from the Madm, not the date indicated in the facts charged, can be presumed to be used by F after July 17, 2014, when the Madm was collected. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25089, Jan. 17, 2014>

In the further appraisal on the hair taken from F on December 3, 2014, about five months after the said appraisal, the stroke-type was not detected (33 in the evidence list, 364 pages). The appraiser J of the National Science Investigation Institute in charge of the two appraisal stated that “it may not be detected by dilution with the stroke-type as time elapsed, but it is not understood that the stroke-type was detected around July 2014 by the stroke-type administered around September 2013.” (Evidence record 366 pages). Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant used the stroke-type as above even after the lapse of that time.”

② On July 21, 2014, at the time of submitting a mobile phone case that is F in the Prosecutor’s Office, the Defendant stated that F was a drug used for both weeks (the first prosecutor’s statement and evidence record 193-194 pages). However, FJ also explained the situation of misunderstanding the room and outside as of January 10, 2014, which was the first police statement, and the second two weeks were not memory after the end, and that F did not completely state the remaining balance in the room (the first prosecutor’s statement and evidence record 193-194 page). The police investigator made a statement to the effect that the two weeks were closed twice, and that it did not completely state the remaining balance in both sides (the first prosecutor’s statement about F) and the first prosecutor’s statement to the effect that the aforementioned situation was maintained in the same manner as the police investigator’s statement during two months before the end of 2014.

Nevertheless, in this court, the F stated that "I am sweet or have a lot of things at a string point or a lot of things, and we am sweet it by such a string, so I am we am sweet, so I am sweet because the balon is not sweld and the balon is sweld, and the balon is sweld, so the balon is balon, so the balon is balon." (15 pages of the protocol of examination of witness with respect to F).

In a situation where a drug mixed with the Triju on January 10, 2014, which was at the time of the initial investigation, was suspected of being the cause of damage, the fact that the two owners, who were faced with the right to the mobile phone rink, remain in a very increased position from the standpoint of F and F, remains, and there is about six months thereafter, and the statement about this remains new. As such, as F and F, there is a strong doubt as to whether the two weeks were the right to the cellular phone at the time of the instant case and whether the two weeks were the right to ask the cellular phone.

(3) As above, in a situation where it is difficult to recognize the existence of physical evidence that the Defendant used a stroke-m to F as stated in the facts charged, the F and I’s statements, which are merely the premise or suspicion of the existence of the stroke-morm, are insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s use of the stroke-m.

(4) Meanwhile, no data was submitted on the route that the Defendant purchased a stroke-m. On the other hand, I, on April 14, 2014, when the investigation of the instant case was conducted, was prescribed three-day via stroke-m (three-day) and submitted only two-day out of them to the prosecution on August 26, 2014, but was found at the office on October 10, 2014, and submitted to the prosecution (Evidence Record 329-358 pages) after being prescribed by this stroke-m (Evidence No. 329-358 pages). On July 17, 2014, I discovered stroke-m through a mobile phone mtroke-m, which was presumed to have been used after July 21, 2014.

In the situation where there are objective circumstances where the defendant dealt with the above-mentioned strokem with F, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant used the above strokem.

(b)related to the statement of F, etc. with regard to impossibility to resist;

(1) Under the circumstances that F was in a state of failing to resist due to drugs at the time stated in the instant facts charged, F and this investigation agency or this court made consistent statements consistent with F and this Court.

① At the time of the instant case, F made a statement to the following purport with regard to the state of his own. That is, there is only memory, such as: (a) the Defendant, who was the second owner of his authority, was unable to associate with the second owner; (b) was traveling away from the age club and the parking lot; (c) he left the clothes that he was deprived of, and went out from, the body; and (d) he was walking the way in almost in an influence; and (c) he was waiting for a male-friendly job-taking when he left the cab.

② At the time of the instant case, at the same time, 1 made a statement to the effect that the instant conversation was recorded in the said mobile phone by stating that, following the sex-related noise, F, male, “e.g., nowhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere anywhere exists.”

(2) However, in light of the following objective circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that F was in a state where the F was unable to resist as stated above.

① On July 21, 2014, 1, along with the cell phone case as seen earlier, submitted cd including the contents recorded in F’s cell phone at the time of the instant case (Evidence No. 19 Cd). However, according to the foregoing cd above, only the voice of the women, i.e., “h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., and

It is natural to view that at the time, women were relatively clear expression of opinion through such voice content or suppression, etc., and it is difficult to view that they were in a state of failing to resist due to drugs, etc.

② Although it may be reported on the stroke-mm when he/she took a drug at the time until the surface of the water, it is basically exempted from the water that shows the effect of the stroke-type patient on a short time (Evidence No. 227, 230, 233, 396). However, even based on F’s statement, the actions that the person himself/herself strokeed are relatively active activities. Such F’s statement seems to contain any aspect that it is difficult to conform to the basic efficacy of the stroke-mm.

③ There is no objective evidence to acknowledge the existence of a male conversation and a mobile phone recording file containing such conversation. In other words, 1 deleted his mobile phone recording file containing such conversation (I stated that the contents of this conversation were recorded only by women’s voice, c.d.) and stated that it was an act to the effect that he and F will start anew and start anew for the past two to three months after the occurrence of the instant case (7,11 pages of the protocol of examination of the I). Considering such I’s statement, given that the mobile phone recording file is suspected of a sexual relationship that is not intended by F, it is difficult to find that the mobile phone file may be a material evidence, but rather, considering the circumstances suspected of a sexual relationship that is not intended by F, it is difficult to take account of the situation that the video recording file is in place on behalf of F around December 2013 to January 2014, and that it is inconsistent with F’s previous statement such as consultation about damage (39 days after the issuance of the evidence list) and its previous statement.

(1) On July 21, 2014, when F, along with the cell phone case seen earlier, was raped at the time of the instant case, I submitted the image of the upper part of F (Evidence No. 18, Evidence No. 197-206, Evidence No. 197-206). According to the above photograph, it can be confirmed that there was a satise or a tag on F’s face, face, arms, legs, etc.

(2) However, as indicated in the instant facts charged, if the F is sexual intercourse in the state where the F was unable to resist due to the strokemm, it would be very exceptional that a wide range of standings, such as the above pictures, takes place to F. The instant case where the F makes a statement to the effect that such a standings were not known of why it occurred, it is difficult to view that there was a reasonable piracy.

D. The defendant's criminal records

(1) On the day of the instant case, the Defendant appears to have not committed an act to identify himself.

① On September 30, 2013, the new wall on the day of the instant case, the Defendant settled the drinking value at around 00:57, and around 01:07, the lodging expenses at HMoel with its own card, and around 01:58, the Defendant also settled the card even at around 12 minutes from the her mother. (Evidence 2 and 3 of the submission of counsel)

② Around 16:00 on September 30, 2013, the day of the instant case, the Defendant called F’s cell phone on September 30, 2013 (Evidence 74 pages) (Evidence 74 pages), and the first police protocol against I (Evidence 34 pages)

(2) On the day of the instant case, the Defendant’s criminal records are deemed to be far away from the actions to be taken by the planned criminals, using drugs called strokemm.

E. Sub-committee

In this case where the Defendant consistently denies that there was no act identical to the facts charged in this case from the investigative agency to the court, in light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to the above facts charged.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges, Chief Judge

Judge Choi Jin-hun

the Commission.

2) At the time, the Defendant’s winded with this phone, and based on Gemanmanmans, this F and Slicks, and the slicks, with the sex-related sound.

Maderns to the purport that they were or recorded, and thereafter, the Defendant was her wife to communicate with F.

There was no contact between F and the termination of the foregoing mobile phone and F.