2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim with the intention to commit the crime.

A. According to subway No. 4 line E station platform and set CCTV images, there is a high probability that a person who was physically contacted with a victim would have been Defendant (at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, there are two persons similar to the Defendant from among those who transit through the Defendant’s store to the place of occurrence of the instant case, but when calculating the time of passage through the store and the time of transition of those who were designated as the perpetrator, there seems to be low possibility that they could have physically contacted with the victim. However, while explaining the appearance of the perpetrator, the victim committed an indecent act by the head in the rear part of the victim.

Since the defendant does not correspond to this, the possibility that other third parties than the defendant would have a physical contact with the victim cannot be ruled out.

In addition, according to CCTV images on the platform, it cannot be confirmed that the person who was deprived of the victim is the defendant.

B. Even if there was any physical contact between the Defendant and the victim, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s act was an indecent act on the following grounds.

The victim is considerably rapid for the defendant to meet his own needs.