A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim B (the family name, the female, the age of 20) are between D in Pyeongtaek-gun C and the rescue staff.

On February 13, 2018, at around 03:0, the Defendant, at the first floor of the set soup, set soup “” located in Gangnam-si E, she dried up, and dried up to the left side of the victim who was locked, and then dried up by the victim’s inner part, taken the hand into charge of the victim’s chest, knife the victim’s knife, knife the victim’s knife, knife the victim’s knife toward the Defendant’s sexual flag, knife the victim’s knife into the victim’s knife.

In this respect, the Defendant committed similar rape by taking advantage of the victim’s mental or physical state of difficulty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness B, F, G, H, and I;

1. On-site photographs, etc. (No. 12 No. 5), J photographs and contents, etc. (No. 4 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel in the order of soup, whether soup is locked (Evidence No. 16)

1. The summary of the claim is that the Defendant was satisfing the victim's chest and satisfe, but there is no fact that the Defendant added the victim's fingers into the victim's sexual organ.

In addition, the Defendant did not recognize the fact that the victim was in a state of mental disorder or inability to resist at the time of committing the act such as deceiving the victim’s chest.

2. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant’s chest and fingerion of the victim in a state of mental disorder or not should be determined to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial. However, the degree of the formation of the conviction for the Defendant’s conviction is not required to the extent that it is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 194Da1548, Apr. 1, 1994).