The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person with a disability of Grade I in intellectual disability (defluence).

On December 6, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00, around Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant: (b) around the elevator with the 15-dong apartment units C, 3-4 D, the victim D (the name, the 11-year old age), waiting for the elevator, was on the part of the Defendant’s hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act against a child or juvenile victim as above.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes “salution” under the Criminal Act in light of the victim’s self-defluence, Defendant’s background leading up to the victim’s bridge, specific behavior, response immediately after the victim’s act, etc.

B. The Defendant’s act is due to the Defendant’s behavior characteristics, and when considering the Defendant’s disability and intellectual ability, the Defendant could feel sexual humiliation or aversion due to his or her behavior.

Since it is not known that the defendant was forced to commit an indecent act, there is intention to compel the defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

(c)

At the time of the act recorded in the facts charged, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or at least in a state of mental and physical weakness due to a mental disorder such as severe pulmonary disorder.

3. Determination

A. (1) Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The recognition of criminal facts shall reach the level of proof that there is no reasonable doubt.”

“.......”

Therefore, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a case where the evidence submitted by a prosecutor alone does not reach such a level that leads to conviction, even if there are suspicions of guilt, it should be determined with the benefit of the defendant (Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1405 delivered on September 1, 1992; 200Do5 delivered on February 23, 2001).