A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed an indecent act by force on the victim E (the son, the son’s nationality, and the 35 years old age) who was working for the Defendant at a cafeteria located in the wife population C on July 4, 2017; (b) committed an indecent act on the part of the Defendant on the part of the Defendant at his own seat.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of E and F;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Determination as to the Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion of the statement protocol, H data submitted in G, and data submitted in the DCC

1. The alleged defendant did not commit any indecent act against the victim.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall evaluate the credibility of the statements, taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the witness who is going to make a statement in the open court after being sworn before a judge, and the penology of the statement, and the fact that the statements made by the victim, including the victims, are consistent with the facts charged, unless there is any other evidence that can objectively be objectively deemed to lack credibility (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). Moreover, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the defendant shall not be denied the credibility of the statements solely on the grounds that the statements made by the victim, etc., are inconsistent with the reasonableness, logic, and experience of the statements themselves, or those made by third parties (see Supreme Court Decision 208Do784, Jul. 28, 2017).