1. Around 00:30 on July 27, 201, the Defendant: (a) requested a female substitute driver who will drive a DNA car owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (b) committed an indecent act by force against the victim by forcing the victim by forcing the victim of the instant vehicle running from the instant vehicle running to the vicinity of Kimpo-dong at around 01:00 on the same day, in which the victim was on board the steering place of the instant vehicle driven by the victim C, and at around Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-dong and Kimpo-dong around Kimpo-dong, around 01:0 on the same day, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim by putting the victim’s chest’s chest and her her her her son’s son’s her kn

2. The judgment of the court below is reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the victim guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds that it is difficult for the victim to believe that the victim, as evidence consistent with the facts charged of this case, has made a statement in the investigative agency of the victim, the first instance court, and the court of the court below that there was a statement that the victim could not be somewhat consistent with the specific contents of indecent act by compulsion at the police, the victim's statement about the color, type, structure, etc. of the vehicle operated at the time of the occurrence of this case differently from that of the vehicle of this case, and the victim cannot be deemed to have been forced by indecent act on the vehicle of this case. ③ The structure of the vehicle of this case, unless the defendant was aboard the vehicle of this case, it is difficult for the victim to conduct indecent act as stated in the facts charged of this case. ④ In light of the fact that the victim did not know whether he was standing at the time of the occurrence of this case, the victim did not report the damage caused by indecent act by compulsion at the police team.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules.