beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of “D” alcohol house located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon on August 20, 2015; (b) was in line with the victim (the age of 19) and the victim’s friendship; (c) was in line with the victim’s friendship; (d) was in line with the victim’s friendship; and (e) was transferred to the nearby “E” house on August 21, 2015; and (e) was in line with the Defendant’s drinking house on August 20, 2015, and then the Defendant would take the victim who was under the influence of the Defendant.
At the same time, Gelter in Bupyeong-gu Incheon would have been working for the victim.
After the Defendant went to the above 302 Moel, the Defendant: (a) went to the toilets of the above 302, and (b) went to the toilets of the above 302; (c) despite the fact that the victim would go to the house, he was able to leave the shoulder of the victim on his hand and divided the victim’s body to take place on the bed, and to take place on the bed.
In addition, the Defendant was off, and the Defendant was off, of the victim’s portrait and clothes, and the victim resisted, resisted, and continued to be out of the victim’s will and clothes by hand, despite the fact that sound was in diameter, and raped once by inserting his sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sound.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion did not take place in his house, but did not take place, and the Defendant’s sexual intercourse was naturally formed after having come to the above youth 302 toilets, which led to the sexual intercourse. Of the sexual intercourse, the Defendant’s sexual intercourse was discontinued to indicate his intention of refusal, and it did not result in the sexual intercourse by force after suppressing the resistance by assault and intimidation.
B. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone led to the suppression of the Defendant’s resistance against assault and intimidation.