A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Criminal facts

On July 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 17:15 on July 25, 2013, the victim D (the age of 21) who sits in the park sperm in the G apartment of the Gu Government-si (the age of 21) sits in the front of the victim, and write down the left shoulder of the victim. (b) The Defendant proposed that “Is the victim,” but the victim refused to do so, was able to rape the victim’s left side after rhing the victim’s buckbuck and rhing the victim’s hand in the front of the victim, and was placed on the top of the victim’s sperm by force, but the Defendant did not come out with the wind that the victim gets on the part of the defendant, and did not come up with an attempted attempt.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Determination on the part concerning the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion among the interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution against the defendant

1. As to the assertion that there is no criminal intent and commencement of the commission of rape, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant could not be deemed to have commenced the commission of rape and that the defendant had no criminal intent to commit rape. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel's aforementioned assertion is rejected since it is sufficiently recognized that, as recognized by the aforementioned evidence, if the defendant stated that "this dial-a-a-a-a-the-job is "a person who is doing so" from the beginning, and that the victim was placed on the top of the victim's shoulder and rhys, and that the victim was forced to put the victim on the top of the forced sperm, if the defendant had a criminal intent to rape and the defendant was forced to put the victim on the top of the sperm, and thus, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion are rejected

2. As to the claim of mental retardation, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was in a state of mental retardation because he was drunkly drunk and has no memory at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore, according to the records, the defendant is deemed to have a considerable amount of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but they are deemed to have a good drinking, and they are before and after the crime