The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On February 9, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 15:30 on February 15, 2013, the Defendant: (b) placed the victim (the victim (the victim (the victim) who was a customer at the “D” location operated by the Defendant’s wife located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (c) placed the telegraph on the part of the customer; (d) placed the victim on the part of his hand; (d) opened the buckbuck paper; (e) let the victim go back to the wall; (e) let the victim walk back the bridge and walk back; and (e) opened the bridge and walk back; and (e) had the victim walk back back to the wall; and (e) committed an indecent act by force the victim by placing the victim’s hand who did not seem to have any particular response within the panty of the victim; and (e) maintained the first instance court, which

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach such a degree of conviction, the determination ought to be based on the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do15767 Decided February 13, 2014, etc.). The Defendant consistently denied the facts charged from an investigative agency to the court of original trial. In addition to the victim’s statement in the record, there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged. Therefore, in order to determine the Defendant guilty on the ground of the victim’s statement, which is the only evidence supporting the facts charged, to the extent that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the victim’s statement in light of the reasonableness and feasibility of the contents of the statement itself, objective circumstances, and empirical rule.