1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months;

2. The defendant shall be ordered to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

Punishment of the crime

On November 10, 2017, at around 21:10, the Defendant ordered food and drink in a Chinese restaurant (hereinafter “D”) located in the Dong-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name of “D” in Busan (hereinafter “D”), the Defendant, who is an employee, was frighting to the victim E (hereinafter “victim, 30 years of age) with their table.

Accordingly, the defendant committed indecent acts against the victim by assault.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

2. Partial statement of the witness F (excluding the part corresponding to the professional statement);

3. Statement made by the police for E.

4. Application of each “12 Reporting List” statute

1. Article 298 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

2. The main sentence of Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to Order;

3. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 47(1) and 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed against the Disclosure of Registered Information and Orders to Notify Information, the main text of Article 49(1) and Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse

1. The summary of the assertion is that the defendant commits an indecent act against the victim as stated in the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The degree of the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial must be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and the rejection by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds for the probative value of evidence is not allowed as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The reasonable doubt here refers not to all questions and correspondences, but to the reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts that are needed in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and is not just a conceptually doubtful or abstract possibility.