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

1. The summary of the facts charged is between the Defendant and the victim B (the age of 27) and the online game that he/she became aware of.

On December 3, 2018, at around 02:05, the Defendant 02:05, while drinking alcoholic beverages with the victim in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Hotel D, she first knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee of the victim, and put the Defendant’s sexual flag into the victim’s resistance.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an act of inserting the sexual organ into the victim's resistance by taking advantage of the victim's mental or physical state of difficulty.

2. The summary of the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion did not contain the Defendant’s sexual organ in the victim’s resistance on the day of the instant case.

3. Determination

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

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

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility and accuracy of a statement made by the victim, and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility and accuracy of a statement made by the victim. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility and accuracy of a statement made by the victim, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility and accuracy of a statement made by the victim, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the victim stated.