Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s judgment against the Defendant was justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the Defendant, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the lower court, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the lower court, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Investigation report (to attach CCTV screen images to the C private rain or the rest room), investigation report (the other party investigation of CCTV against A private rain or the rest room);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CCTV video CDs and CCTV closure photographs;

1. Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Selection of Fines for Crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. According to the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 56(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the victim’s implied consent on the victim’s bridge and sexual intercourse. The Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offense, and the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s

1. The victim stated in the investigative agency and the court that he was unable to know that he was able to remove a small theater at the latest before the instant case at the latest, and that he was able to drink up to 1 market price of the new wall, and that he was locked at approximately 2-3 hours prior to the occurrence of the mobile phone, and that he was unable to know that he was locked at the time.

2. The CCTVs of the instant rain or male resting room from 07:42 on the day of the instant case to 07:50 on the day of the instant case are taken of the following pages.

around 07:40:50, the defendant is a resting room in which the victim is his own.