beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On January 21, 2017, the Defendant, while drunk from around 02:00 to around 06:00, was under the influence of “D” 709, a member of the same mountain club, who was divingd in the living room, and was living together in the same mountain room for rape of the victim E (the 42 years old), was moving to another place where the victim was under the influence of alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol, and was bread into the victim under the influence of alcohol while putting the knish in the clothes of the victimized person, and putting the knick in the clothes of the victimized person, and putting the knick in the knish of the injured person.
Accordingly, the defendant committed similar rape by using the victim's resistance impossible condition.
2. The summary of the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion that there was no fact that the defendant delivered the victim's chest or brought the victim's finger, and at the time, the victim was not able to resist.
3. Determination
A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent of having the aforementioned conviction, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant.
B. In order for a child to be found guilty of the facts charged solely based on the victim’s statement, high probative value is required to the extent that there is no room for doubt as to the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether such probative value has been maintained, a comprehensive consideration should be given not only to the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness, but also to personal elements, such as the victim’s sexual character (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 2012).