A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, from around 00:00 on September 9, 201 to around 01:00 on the same day, committed an indecent act by compulsion by force against the victim, following the victim’s following behind the victim, by discovering the victim E (the victim’s age is 36) who was going through such places in front of the D convenience store in Western City C, and by causing the victim’s desire to commit an indecent act.

2. At the same time, at the same time, and at the same place as paragraph (1), the victim E resisted the Defendant’s act of indecent act by compulsion, and publicly insulting the victim by stating that “the victim’s spawn, spawn, in which the victim’s spawn could not spawn, spawn, and spawn,” in front of the general public,

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the fifth trial records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning G police statements;

1. The applicable legal provisions of Article 298 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with labor concerning the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act [the aggregate of the long-term punishments in the crimes of indecent act by compulsion which are heavier than the punishment] among concurrent crimes;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the reasoning of sentencing), the Defendant denies the crime of indecent act by compulsion by force by asserting that the Defendant was against the victim and the path.

However, witness E and G are consistent with each other in an investigative agency and court, and they do not peep into circumstances in which they can find the defendant.

On the other hand, the testimony of H, which is consistent with the defendant's argument, is made by the victim in the investigative agency and the court to the effect that the defendant was aware of the victim's right behind the victim (as stated in the investigation record No. 45 pages), and the defendant was dried up.