A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who works as a taxi driver belonging to a building transport service.

From April 23, 2013 to June 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) the mother of the victim D (n, six years of age) (hereinafter referred to as the “victim D”) who became aware of in the first grade of elementary school while running a call taxi business at the Jinjin-si C was asked by the victim’s staff at the first grade of elementary school; and (b) the Defendant was going to a Fropo-si operated by the Defendant and was compelled by the victim’s panty line above the victim’s panty line on his hand in the said taxi.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Recording records;

1. A report on investigation (Attachment of expert opinions) and an expert opinion attached thereto;

1. A report on investigation (with respect to confirmation of details of the suspect's currency) and attached telephone calls;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of Chapter 1 in color;

1. Relevant Articles 305 and 298 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 305 and 298 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations in favor of the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not commit an indecent act as stated in the above facts of crime, even though he did not commit an indecent act on the part of the defendant, when he was in the process of finding the victim's bridge at the back seat of the taxi.

On June 26, 2013, around 14:32 on June 26, 2013, the victim made a statement about the facts of damage at the one-to-saw support center for victims of violence at Chungcheongnam Women's School, and the defendant made a statement to the effect that the victim was only twice a part of the victim's sound, and G, the expert of the child sexual assault case, presented the opinion that "when analyzing all the verbal or non-language elements of the victim expressed through the whole process of the statement, it means the fact about the victim's identity."