Attorney in charge C

The defendant is a person who operates a private taxi.

At around 19:30 on June 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was operating a taxi in front of the elbow in the elel of the elbow in the Daegu-gu, Tae-gu; (b) was operating a taxi before the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the age of 31). At the same time, the Defendant: (c) took a sexual agricultural fence, “Acheon-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, where the last road of the Kacheon-gu Toll Road was in front of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the age of 31).” (d) made the victim, who was seated at the back of the Seo-gu Special Metropolitan City (the age of Kacheon-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the age of Kabuck-gu).” (e.g., the victim’s 1 to the front of the victim’s buck.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant had only twice the victim's bridge with the consent of the victim.

B. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.

(1) The taxi driven by the defendant is K5 modeled in K5 m. The distance from the driving vehicle to the rear seat, etc. is about 176 m., about 174.5 m., the height of the defendant is about 174.5 m. and about 76 m. of the length of one selling.

② In a case where the Defendant sits into a driver’s seat and moves into a taxi driver’s seat over his/her left hand, it is possible to cross the bridge of the passengers sitting into the rear seat, but it is not easy to cross the part of the bridge of the passengers sitting into the rear seat, elel or left side without the consent of the passengers. It seems that the victim sitting into the rear seat of the 3 cab did not move to the right side or left side of the cab in order to avoid continuous contact of the Defendant after the Defendant was contacted by the Defendant.

C. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to view that the facts charged have been proven to the extent that the judge could not have any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, it is so decided as per Disposition to sentence innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

As a result of the suspension of prosecution and the interruption of communication, it was impossible to examine the victim as a witness in this court, and the authenticity of the above written statement was made.

인정할 자료가 없어 증거능력이 인정되지 않았다. 이런 사정에 비추어 볼 떄 피해자의 수사기관에서의 진술이 특히 신빙할

It is difficult to view the victim’s statement as a statement in such a state. Furthermore, even if admissibility is recognized in the victim’s statement by investigation agency, objection

In the absence of impeachment of the probative value by questioning, the judge's conviction in the above charged facts shall be ensured.

No degree of credibility may be deemed to exist.