beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. The Defendant and the victim B (the age of 17) of the instant facts charged are middle school Dongs.
On June 2, 2018, at around 02:40, the Defendant 2: (a) 02:40, while drinking a drunk victim in a street near the Seoul Western-gu C and the first floor “D convenience store”, she gets the victim’s chest by his/her own hand while walking at the victim’s house; (b) putting the victim’s chest into the victim’s chest with his/her clothes; and (c) continuously putting the victim’s chest into the victim’s breast, and she she walked “Ie” while continuing to her breast, she she walked along with the victim’s her upper part of the victim’s inner part; and (d) putting his/her finger into the victim’s sexual part, who she was seated in the front part of the latter; and (d) put the Defendant’s sexual part into the victim’s inner part of the building once.
Accordingly, the Defendant raped the victim.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial of relevant legal principles, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach such a degree that it would lead to such conviction, the determination should be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there is a suspicion
(2) In a case where the victim’s statement is actually the sole basis of the victim’s statement, the victim’s statement should be deemed to be reasonable and reasonable in light of the victim’s own rationality and feasibility, objective circumstances, and rule of experience, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do767, Apr. 15, 2005). In particular, if the Defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the victim’s statement is based on direct evidence consistent with the facts charged on the records, the victim’s statement should be deemed to have credibility to the extent
Supreme Court Decision 2016Do21231 Decided October 31, 2017 and Supreme Court Decision 201Do26 Decided November 26, 2015.