The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

On August 21, 2014, around 23:00 on August 21, 2014, the Defendant stated the trade name of the said public residence as “F” in the police investigation.

(Evidence No. 26). In the case of No. 26 pages, the victim E (n.e., 13 years of age) who was known to the general public is called "the victim E (n.e., 13 years of age)" and tried to put his hand into a pursuant to the victim's jackets that the victim refuses to do so, to see, and to ki by the victim, and to kid by the victim, and to string and kid by the victim, the victim's kid the victim's kidk "Ikh" into the string of the victim, and then put the victim's kid, and the sexual flag into the part of the victim

Thus, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim who is juvenile by force.

In the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.), “compact” refers to a sufficient force to suppress the victim’s free will. Since it is not tangible or intangible, it is possible to use not only assault and intimidation but also social, economic and political status or authority of the offender. Whether a perpetrator has sexual intercourse with another person by force or not should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the content and degree of force exercised, the type of offender’s status and authority, the degree or age of the victim, the relationship between the offender and the victim, the circumstances leading to such act, the form of specific act, and the circumstances at the time of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4818 Decided August 23, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4069 Decided July 24, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, in a criminal trial, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110 Delivered on February 11, 2003