The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 26, 2017, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim E (the victim 24 years old) who intends to drink with the Defendant in front of “D” located in Pyeongtaek-si C on April 26, 2017.

2. At the time of the instant judgment, the victim E’s memory and the taxi at the time of the instant judgment are highly likely to witness the scene in a timely manner while driving the taxi at the time, and the victim’s memory is not accurate.

In fact, the E/F’s statements in this court are not complete, inaccurate, and are not inconsistent with each other.

As alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the Defendant attached the victim for the purpose of preventing the victim from committing an act, such as when intending to leave the victim's work on a house in the vicinity of a teahouse, and that the F of the taxi driver who observed this situation reported the above situation and the misunderstanding was made in the situation where the Defendant committed an indecent act and resisted by the victim.

In light of this point, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone committed an indecent act against the victim.

In addition, such as the statement of the victim E, the defendant was placed with the victim for the purpose of preventing the victim from returning home first.

Even if such facts alone, it is difficult to say that the Defendant’s act causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public objectively and goes against good sexual morality, and that it leads to the form of violent infringement on E’s right to sexual self-determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do6416 decided December 24, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2014Do6416 decided December 24, 2014).

Even if the defendant's act is sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public.