The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 12, 2016, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol on the front of the “D cafeteria” road located in Seopo-si, Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim E (hereinafter “D cafeteria”), who was under the influence of the alcohol on the front of the “D cafeteria.”

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the establishment of a criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). (b) The evidence that seems consistent with the facts charged in the instant case ought to be proved by E and F, respectively.

However, F was present as a witness in this Court, and at the time, the Defendant was placed in E and Ma, and the Defendant was placed in E from the rear side of E, so the Defendant did not directly see the face of E.

was testified.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant's k's k's k's k's k's k's k' is true.

However, according to evidence, such as E and F’s testimony, the Defendant was engaged in very rough and disorderly activities, such as walking or parking cars, which are used on the path at the time. Therefore, there is a possibility that the Defendant’s body was not properly accumulated, while walking to E is likely to contact the Defendant’s hand.

I seem to appear.

In addition, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is recognized that the defendant was aware of E's intention to commit an indecent act against E on the date stated in the facts charged in the instant case.