The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the intent of the victim B (n, 36 years of age) who attends the same workplace.

On January 4, 2018, from around 01:40 to around 07:30, the Defendant had sexual intercourse by putting the Defendant’s sexual organ out of the lower part of the victim’s body and inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the negative part of the victim’s sexual organ by using the state in which the victim was her body and was unable to her body, due to a three-dimensional common ceremony in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant’s dwelling place.

As a result, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's mental or physical loss, or the impossibility of resistance.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that they had sexual intercourse under mutual agreement with the victim in the process of natural study, and that they did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s mental and physical loss or incompetence.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) In a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the evidence submitted by a prosecutor does not reach the degree that such conviction would lead to a conviction, even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5395, Feb. 23, 2001). In particular, in a case where the defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the victim’s statement is de facto only by direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged in the record, in order to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged because the victim’s statement is based only on the victim’s statement, there is a need for high probative value that is sufficient to doubt about the truth and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether such probative value exists, the victim’s own statement itself is reasonable, consistent, objective reasonableness, as well as personal character of the victim, etc.