The defendant shall be innocent.

On September 12, 2016, the Defendant committed an indecent act by using the gap between viewing stations in subway 1, subway lines located in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, about 08:30 on September 12, 2016, in the subway line 426, following the victim C (V, 29 years of age).

Accordingly, the Defendant committed indecent act against the victim in a densely concentrated place.

Judgment

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). The defendant and defense counsel asserted to the effect that the defendant and defense counsel did not commit an indecent act because they were in the vicinity of the victimized person in the subway train train where the defendant was congested, but they did not commit an indecent act.

The evidence directly corresponding to the above facts charged is made in the victim's investigative agency and court, and the victim makes a statement to the effect that he/she commits an indecent act like the facts charged.

However, according to the records, the victim did not directly see that the defendant was her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her at the time

In light of these facts, it is difficult to recognize the above facts charged by the victim's statement alone, because it is difficult to easily eliminate the possibility of other people in addition to the defendant's her her her sent.