Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On January 1, 2017, at around 00:0, the Defendant stated that the sound of D hotel 12-A floor 25, located in China, was "I Doz and F, who have to have a brue from now outside, "I Doz have to have a brue from now to now".

F. F. H. L.W. L. 37 years old) L.W. L.W. for the victim G.

In other words, while the victim was followed, the defendant gets up the part of the victim's chest and made a forced indecent act by entering the bottom of the victim's chest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Application of the witness E’s partial legal statement statutes;

1. Relevant Article 298 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 298 of the Criminal Act concerning the option of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to Order;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Unlike the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, unlike the entries in the instant facts charged, was placed on the part of the victim’s humf, and this does not constitute a forced

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles 1) In a case where the statements made by witnesses, including the victim, are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without any separate evidence to deem the credibility of the statements objectively, unless there is any other reliable evidence to believe that the statements made by the witness are objectively acceptable. In the major part of the statements made by the witness, the credibility of the statements should not be readily denied solely on the ground that the statements made by the witness are somewhat consistent with the statements made on other minor matters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008).