Indecent Acts in Action)

On July 31, 2018, at around 18:48, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in the means of public transportation for about 10 minutes by closely sticking to the victim B (n, 23 years of age) within the electric train operated in the direction of the yellow calendar in the subway 9 line, which is operated in the high-speed terminal station of the subway 188 due to the new distribution of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, with the victim B (n, 23 years of age).

2. Determination

As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, D’s legal statement, screen pictures taken by the police officer of the same police officer, and screen pictures of the same police officer. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the above evidence alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

A. D stated in the court that "the defendant was on board the boom attached to the victim's post, and that he was attached to the victim's body immediately after the victim's end in the preceding Dong, and that the defendant was on his her son's son's son."

B. However, D had a little difference after the left side of the Defendant at the time, and there was two or three persons between the Defendant and D, and it was difficult to see the Defendant’s indecent act on that spot. Therefore, the part that “the Defendant was her fingert with the victim’s finger, etc.” is likely to have heard from the police officer in that he did not directly state that the Defendant’s sexual flag was in contact with the victim’s sexual flag, but rather, it is nothing more than a inferred statement that it would have been in contact with the victim’s body in light of the degree of fastness. The video recorded at the time, after the victim’s immediate contact, the Defendant could not have been able to have been able to have been tightly described in the direction of the victim within the front time, and the Defendant could not have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been tight by the victim’s and her body.

E. Also, according to the video, it appears that the defendant did not change his attitude or location to avoid physical contact, but further, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant was satisfyed with the victim by intentionally keeping his/her body contact with the victim when the defendant was in a space to avoid physical contact with the victim.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and did not disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of