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

1. On December 4, 2015, from around 08:26 to 08:34, the Defendant: (a) committed an indecent act on the part of the victim E (V, 23 years old); (b) the Defendant was close to the victim E (V, 23 years old); and (c) committed an indecent act on the part of the injured party, such as the Defendant’s sexual flag, in the subway, which is a means of public transportation.

2. The Defendant asserted that there was no indecent act against the victim, such as consistently stated in the facts charged, from an investigative agency to this court.

Considering the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim E with the intent to commit the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act of committing the act

0 The police officer F found the defendant who had been two consecutive times in the D basin and had been able to get on the ship in the front of the female, so the defendant is doubtful as a sexual indecent act, and the defendant was on board the subway following the defendant.

Along with the fact that the defendant is closely exposed to the victim, the defendant started to show the evidence with the video.

Along with the entry of the people in G, the Defendant was perceived to be imprisonised. (H) Along with the victim, the victim was deprived, and the victim was asked whether he/she was physically contacted by the victim, and then the Defendant was arrested as an indecent act (flagrant act).

The defendant showed his her her mare in the future, but it was thought that there was a contact with the victim at the time.

Even if it can be sufficiently avoided, it has been contacted by intentionally using scaming scams while using them.

The lower court stated that the case was “......”

However, it is an indecent act committed from D to G.