The defendant is innocent.

around 19:10 on May 8, 2017, the Defendant: (a) boarded the Defendant’s right side on the right side of the victim D (V, 16 years old) while boarding the subway station located in the Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, from the subway Station Cultural Park Station located in 230, to the mouth of the entrance of the sexual strings; and (b) attached the Defendant’s right side to the Defendant’s hand, etc.; (c) brought about the Defendant’s damages, etc.; and (d) met the Defendant’s hand and hand, etc., to the right side of the victim’s right side.

As a result, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in the former car which is a means of public transportation.

Judgment

The conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

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

① As the defendant denies the content of the protocol of interrogation of the police and the reflective question about the preparation of the defendant against the defendant, the admissibility of evidence is inadmissible.

② Inasmuch as the Defendant did not agree to the written statement made by the police against the victim D as evidence, the admissibility of evidence may not be recognized even if the victim’s refusal of legal testimony was not recognized, even if Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act is difficult to deem that the said written statement made by the police as to the victim D was applied.

As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the witness E and F made each statement in this court, and the witness E and F’s video CDs and video closures.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., (i) regarding the fact that the Defendant was aware of the victim’s “comfort” portion of the facts charged in the instant case, the police officers stated to the effect that the witness was consistent with it; (ii) the victim appears to have not been aware of it; and (iii) the victim was closely adhered to the subway at the time.