The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was prompt, as soon as possible, did not commit indecent acts by force by force, such as cutting down the parts of the D, carrying out the sexual organ of D, but did not commit indecent acts by force.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of facts charged and erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The Defendant in the facts charged in the instant case is a person operating a B laundry house, and the victim is a customer twice.

On July 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 20:30, the Defendant reported that the victim D(24 years of age) who is a customer in Changwon-si window C and the first floor B laund was suffering from laundry; and (b) caused the victim to feel sexually sexually, such as having the victim feel sexually sexually, by holding the victim’s hand over his hand without any gaps.

3. The Defendant denied the instant facts charged even in the lower court’s judgment to the same effect as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the victim’s statement, etc. on the grounds that the victim’s primary statement as to the situation at issue is consistent and the circumstances to suspect credibility are not found.

4. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for the judgment of the party trial, and the finding of guilt must be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006). The Defendant consistently asserts that there was no fact of indecent act by force from an investigative agency to a trial.