The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant commits an indecent act against the victim, such as the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake of facts.

2. On May 31, 2014, the Defendant, at around 16:00, committed an indecent act by force against the victim by putting on the Defendant the right mack of the victim E (V, 20 years old) at the Defendant’s hand, while waiting for a bus in front of the bus stops located in Daejeon Dong-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon. In order to find the bus at the right mack of the bus, the Defendant was forced to commit an indecent act against the victim by putting on the Defendant’s hand.

3. Determination

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged after compiling the evidence in its judgment.

B. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial for the judgment of the trial court is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proof, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

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

In order to find a guilty of charges by solely taking advantage of the victim’s statement only, the victim’s statement requires high probative value to the extent that there is no doubt as to the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether the victim satisfies such probative value, a comprehensive consideration should be given not only to the reasonableness, consistency, and objective reasonableness of the statement itself, but also to personal elements, such as the victim’s sexual character.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do16413, May 10, 2012). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court pursuant to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s judgment is tenable.