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

1. On May 9, 2015, at around 11:13, 2015, the Defendant sent the victim’s cell phone located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a mobile phone of the victim D (numb, 17 years old) with a message stating that “the victim’s cell phone is broken off” was sent to the victim’s house.

At around 12:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) took the hands of the victim who shouldered himself in the room of the Defendant; (b) divided the victim by hair and hand; and (c) threatened the victim with his resistance, and sexual intercourse over twice.

Accordingly, the Defendant raped the victim.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant only has a sexual intercourse under an agreement with the victim and did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by threatening and threatening the victim.

3. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true enough to have no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the suspect is suspected of guilt even in the absence of such evidence.

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

In particular, if the Defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in the record is practically a victim’s statement, and the remaining evidence is merely hearsay evidence based on the victim’s statement, in order to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by solely based on the victim’s statement, the high probative value is required to be so high that there is little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the victim’s statement. In determining whether the probative value exists, a comprehensive consideration should be given not only to the reasonableness, consistency and objective reasonableness of the victim’s statement, but also to the personal elements such as the victim’s sexual character.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do16413 Decided May 10, 2012, etc.).