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

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates a singing gymnasiums in Gyeonggi-si, and the victim D (V, 23 years old) is a person who was born in the above singman from February 2015 to the above singman.

The Defendant, from February 27, 2015 to February 22:00 on the following day, 20:00 on the day from February 27, 2015 to 00:00, she drinks alcohol at a closed-end house where it is impossible to identify the trade name in Gyeongsan City C, and the Defendant and the victim returned first to Korea, after returning to Korea the above E, have moved to another main shop located in Gyeongsidong in Gyeongsan City, and they drink alcohol together from February 28, 2015 to February 04:52.

After that, on February 28, 2015, the Defendant: Gelel located in the Simsan City F (hereinafter “instant telecom”) around 05:15.

In 201, the victim was in the state of being drunk and inserted his sexual flag once into the part of the victim's sound.

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 asserted that they had sexual intercourse with the victim by agreement.

Although it was true that the injured was under the influence of alcohol at the time, it did not reach the status of mental and physical loss or resistance.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) The fact that constitutes 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 subjective or objective, and the recognition of a crime ought to be based on the burden of proof that the judge has no 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 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). Meanwhile, the Criminal Act is applied.