2. The summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that visiting a similar act place of business to pay additional costs to the victim for a strong sexual self-harm, and the defendant's and defense counsel's demand for petence, such as sexual vision, is a fact, but there is no fact that rape or inserting sexual organ into the victim.

3. Determination

A. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial of relevant legal principles are the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is subjective or objective, and the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s aforementioned conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory to or without doubt, it should be determined as the profits of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487 Decided April 28, 2011). Furthermore, in order to recognize a guilty of charges solely based on a victim’s statement only, the victim’s statement requires high probative value so as to have no doubt as to the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether the victim has such probative value, the victim’s statement itself is reasonable, consistent, objective reasonableness, as well as the victim’s sexual character.