Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

At around 08:10 on June 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) while moving to a 1st boat subway that was operated as a water station in the gold station, the Defendant committed an indecent act by committing an indecent act, such as shacking the victim E (n, 25 years of age) who was set off prior to the D Station by causing damage to the D Station, using the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her, etc. with his her her her her her her her her

On June 17, 2015, around 08:10 on June 17, 2015, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in the same manner.

Accordingly, the defendant committed each indecent act against the victim in the subway which is a means of public transportation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on the record of Defendant transportation cards, details of victim transportation cards, and application of FF Station GET passengers' subordinate records

1. Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Selection of Fines for Crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed;

1. The rejection by causing a suspicion that there is no reasonable ground to acknowledge the probative value of conviction under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act may not be permitted as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do14656, May 16, 2014). In a case where the statements made by the witness, such as the victim, etc., are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, unless there is any separate reliable evidence to deem that the statements made by the witness are objectively acceptable from an objective perspective, it shall not be rejected without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The statement made by the victim F, who corresponds to the facts charged in this case, from the time of investigation, shall be in this court.