beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On March 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was on leave during military service; (b) around 22:00, at the main point of “D” located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant discovered that the Defendant was able to sit on the floor by drinking the victim under the influence of alcohol on the side of the Defendant, as well as those who were in a drinking place, as well as the motives and backs of the same school, including universities ¡¿ victim E (F, 20 years of age) who was a part of the course after the course of study, as well as the motives and backs of the same school.
On March 13, 2015, the Defendant laid the victim’s body at around 02:00 to the extent that he was unable to hold his body, and entered a family room where the number of G female house located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F is unknown, and the victim laid off the clothes of the victim where he was found to have the Gu soil and sand defective, taken a bath, taken off a cleaning room and be on a bend, and inserted the victim’s sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sound.
Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's mental and physical loss.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are acknowledged: (i) the victim, etc. was a man-child-friendly H, who was in the drinking place with the defendant, etc., and (ii) the defendant took the victim into the care of his wife, and (iii) attempted sexual intercourse with the victim at the place; and (iv) made a cleaning at the victim’s earth and sand under the influence of alcohol.
In light of this, there is sufficient room to suspect that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim under the influence of alcohol, as stated in the facts charged.
B. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances revealed through the instant pleadings, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to resist at the time of the instant case, or the Defendant committed sexual intercourse with the victim with the intent to commit quasi-rape while recognizing the same.