Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who engages in daily labor.

1. On July 17, 2013, the Defendant, at around 23:05, committed indecent act by compulsion, at the main point of “E” in the operation of “E” of “E”, the second-class victim D (the second-class victim) of the building located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City, and went out of the said main point by leaving by his name-free customers, and again, opened a locked door and opened a locked door, and said, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim by driving the victim’s left chest by driving the entrance and driving him.

2. At around 23:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) opened a lock by inserting hand the entrance door used as a middle door between the second and third floors of the building on the same day; (b) opened the lock door through the entrance door of the victim F residing in the third floor; and (c) intruded the victim’s residence through the entrance door of the victim F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol to D and F

1. Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of entering the dwelling by force) of the relevant legal provisions on criminal facts;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment (the agreed point with each victim, circumstances of the crime, etc.);

1. From among concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the aggregate of the maximum amount of the crimes of indecent act by compulsion determined with heavier punishment) among concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes committed against Order to attend lectures;

1. The defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is asserted that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, it is recognized that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but the circumstances and the crime of this case.