The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) from June 2013, 2013, when she was fluord with the victim D (the age of 37) and was informed of the Hague on February 25, 2014; (b) on February 26, 2014, on the part of the Defendant, she was furbed with the victim under the Furbel E located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si; (c) she was furd with the victim; and (d) she was furd with the victim and she was furd with the victim’s head listed above the body of the female, she was furd with the Defendant’s sexual organ inserted into the part of the victim’s sexual organ, which continued to be furd with the Defendant’s sexual organ flad with the Defendant’s sexual organ flad with the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant and his defense counsel had sexual intercourse once in agreement with the victim at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and that the Defendant had suspended sexual intercourse by disputeing with the male problem of the victim during the course of having re-sex relationship, and did not have raped the victim.

B. 1) The relevant legal doctrine 1) The burden of proving the criminal facts indicted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true enough to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. In addition, in order for the victim to be convicted of the facts charged solely based on the victim's statement as in the instant case, the victim's statement alone requires high probative value so as to have little doubt about the truth and accuracy of the statement. Determination of whether there is such probative value should comprehensively consider not only the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness of the victim's statement, but also personal elements such as the victim's sexual character (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 2012).