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

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On August 26, 2016, around 00:00, the Defendant found out the victim D (n, 33 years of age) in front of the entrance of the 4th floor of the building located in the Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, and concluded that “a person who would drink” and “a person who would drink”, and committed an indecent act on the victim’s face by hand.

B. On August 26, 2016, at around 02:00, the Defendant made a statement to the victim D (at the age of 33) who intends to go to the house, that “the victim would go to the house”, and the victim’s face was met with the victim’s own hand, and the victim would go to the victim’s face when the victim tried to become aware of the victim’s additionally, and the victim was forced to go to contact with the victim’s bridge by force against the victim’s hand.

As a result, the defendant forced the victim to commit an indecent act and caused the victim to suffer a charnel of heavy satisfaction for about four weeks of medical treatment.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that there was no fact that the Defendant took the victim’s face by hand in relation to paragraph (1) of the facts charged, and there was no fact that he/she took the victim’s face or attempted to take the victim’s face by hand in relation to paragraph (2) of the facts charged, and there was no fact that he/she made the victim take the victim’s face by force by hand.

B. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is a subjective requirement or an objective requirement, and the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence that leads to a judge’s conviction to the extent that there is no room for reasonable doubt.

Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictoryly or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 28, Apr. 28, 201).