The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 05:00 on June 1, 2017, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the main point of “E” in the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant on the first floor of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu D Underground 1; (b) music together with the Victim F (the age of 23) known to ordinary people; (c) forced the Defendant to put the Victim on his/her will by forcing the Defendant to feel the Victim while drinking alcohol; and (d) put the Victim into his/her back his/her back his/her body with the victim’s panty, without suppressing the victim’s resistance; and (e) put his/her fingers into the victim’s panty.

In this respect, the Defendant raped the victimized person.

2. There is no fact that the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion of fingers was put into the part of the victim’s assertion, and only a number of kis and slicks had been made with the consent of the victim.

3. Determination

A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a related criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree that the aforementioned convictions, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if the defendant is suspected of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). In particular, in a case where the defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the victim’s statement is practically the only victim’s statement is made as direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in the record, in order to find the defendant guilty based on the victim’s statement, there is a need for high probative value that is sufficient to have little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement, and determination whether the victim has such probative value should take into account the rationality, consistency, objective reasonableness, etc. of the statement itself (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do16413, May 10, 2012).