The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 12:20 on October 12, 2015, while drinking alcohol at a D restaurant located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant placed his hand in the clothes of the victim E (V, 48 years old) who was able to do so and was in a sofa, and met the chest of the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

2. A protocol in which the investigative agency stated the statement of the person who made the original statement has a limit to the effect that the person who made the original statement has a very low probative value compared to the statement of the original person who made the original statement. In particular, in a case where the person who made the original statement was unable to attend the court and cross-examine the witness, a protocol in which the statement was made cannot be recognized as having a real value of evidence that can serve as the basis for the formation of the correct conviction

Therefore, even though the defendant denied the content of the protocol in which the investigative agency stated the original statement in the facts charged and its support, if the original statement was not present at the court and the defendant did not cross-examination by the defendant, it clearly states the fact that the original statement was directly experienced in the protocol and the detailed and detailed contents of the circumstances. Thus, even if the contents of the protocol are not cross-examination, it can be clearly recognized that the exact intent of the statement was clearly recognized even without undergoing cross-examination. Unless there are special circumstances that may recognize strong probative value in light of the form and content of the protocol, or there are other flexible evidence that can support the credibility and probative value of the statement in the protocol, such protocol cannot be acknowledged as having genuine value of evidence, and thus, it is not permissible to recognize the facts charged as its main evidence in principle.

This is due to the death or illness of the original statement, the attendance of the original statement at the court and the cross-examination are conducted.