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

1. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant, around 18:40, committed an indecent act between 10 minutes of the victim’s head knife and her knife in the electric car in the subway stations located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, following the fast-down of the gap in passengers’ concentration in the subway stations located in Seocho-gu, Seoul, and the victim’s head knife., left the victim’s head knife, and her knife knife knife knife knife.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in the electric car, which is a densely concentrated place for the public.

2. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim E’s police and legal statement and police officer F’s legal statement is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim E with the intent to commit the act with the intent to commit the act as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The police officer in charge of crackdownd the victim's head knife and the victim's head knife and the victim's head knife were omitted even though the victim's head knife and the victim's head knife were omitted, and the victim's head knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

However, at the time of the instant case, it seems inevitable to see that the physical condition between passengers was inevitable due to very complicated congestion to the extent that it would be difficult to move the place inside the train at the time of the instant case. However, in such a situation, the Defendant did not engage in special actions, such as being pushed off to the her mal part or unhulled her part, except for the concentration of Internet search, etc. with the cell phone in the damages caused by the Defendant’s hand, such special actions as being pushed off to the mal part of the victimized person’s mal part or unhulled part, etc.

Defendant’s statement that she directly saw that she was born at her husband’s seat. However, the above part’s statement not only differs from the initial police statement of the victimized person, but also is based on the conical statement.