1. The defendant is not guilty. 2. The defendant's request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed.

3. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published;

Judgment on facts charged

1. On May 21, 2014, around 19:53, the Defendant: (a) around May 21, 201, when working at a hospital as a social work personnel, at the “E” restaurant located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “E”), five hospital staff members, including victim F (hereinafter “the age of 21) and five; (b) the victim went out of the toilet to come out of the toilet; and (c) the victim cannot get out of the body; and (d) the victim was sent out of the “G” terminal located in the same building as the above restaurant (hereinafter “Mel parking lot”), and the victim’s chest might come out, and kid from the rest of the body of the victim. Accordingly, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim at the parking lot of the “I” building located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu (hereinafter “ Hanwon parking lot”).

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's mental or physical state of difficulty.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant naturally sought the consent of the victim and transferred the same to one’s original parking lot after seeking the consent of the victim. At the time of the sex relationship, the victim did not have any mental or physical condition or to resist.

3. The establishment of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction is ensured, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). The crime of quasi-rape under Articles 299 and 297 of the Criminal Act at issue in the instant case is taking advantage of the person’s mental disorder or the state of failing to resist.