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

The summary of the facts charged was around 06:45 on May 16, 2014, the Defendant committed an indecent act by forcing the victim D (hereinafter referred to as “the victim D,” 20 years of age) standing in front of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, by drinking the victim’s body, using the victim’s body, and using the victim’s body to commit indecent act.

However, the Defendant consistently asserts that there is no indecent act against D from the investigative agency to the court.

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the admissibility of evidence of the statement or written statement made or prepared by the witness in cases where the whereabouts of the witness is unknown. Article 312 or 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the admissibility of evidence only when strict requirements, such as guaranteeing the right of cross-examination of the defendant or his/her defense counsel with respect to the written statement, etc. such as the statement of witness, so that the admissibility of evidence can be acknowledged, thereby recognizing exceptions to the basic principles, such as the principle of direct cross-examination, and allowing the admissibility of evidence without any opportunity to cross-examine the person making the original statement. In such a case, the “certification of the fact that the statement or written statement of the witness was made under particularly reliable circumstances” is insufficient to the extent that it is probable, and it should be ruled out

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12652, Feb. 21, 2014). According to the records, the Defendant and the victim were investigated by the police upon reporting by the victim.

The written statement of the police against the victim contains the victim's statement that the defendant was subject to indecent act, such as the written facts charged.

However, in the absence of any other evidence to prove guilty of the facts charged, the Defendant stated that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, unlike the victim’s statement.

Thus, the investigative agency is the defendant and the victim.