beta
Text
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is a person who was living together with B and on August 27, 2017, through a meeting of the common interest society, including Gyeonggi-do, for three months during which he/she reached a school system.
around 03:00 on November 12, 2017, the Defendant was assaulted by B in front of B’s house located in Junggu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul.
The fact that the report was filed in 112 was purely imprupted from B with the intention of having a quasi-rape or raped from B, notwithstanding the fact that B was not subject to criminal punishment, a person under the influence of alcohol at a police station D on the same day with the intent of having him/her make a statement of assault damage to E at the police station D on the same day, and “a person under the influence of alcohol in a breater where the trade name near the Seoul mid-gu F market is unknown at the beginning of September 2017, he/she was raped by forcing him/her from his/her body, inserting clothes, inserting his/her clothes, inserting his/her clothes, inserting him/her by inserting them into the sound part at the same time as at the beginning of October 2017. A person was raped by forcing him/her from the Defendant’s panty by inserting his/her panty on or around October 9, 2017.
“.” reported to the effect that “.”
In this respect, the defendant committed a criminal punishment against B for the purpose of having B punished.
2. In fact, the Defendant and his defense counsel argued that they were raped or quasi-raped in three times from B, and the police officer made a statement of damage. At the time, the Defendant and his defense counsel recommended the police officer to make a statement of damage and reported it to sexual assault.
There is no intention to commit a false accusation because it is not a false report contrary to objective facts, but a report is believed to be true.
3. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for judgment lies in the prosecutor, and the conviction has probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.