beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
On August 1, 2017, at around 18:30, the defendant in the factory room entered the second column located in the PC female room of B 1st floor B underground in Yangyang-si, Namyang-si, B, and under the bottom of the partitions, the defendant tried to photograph the body of the victim D (the age of 21) (the age of 21) who was using the side partitions by putting a cellphone 6 flus cellular phone camera used by himself/herself in a sealed part and used the side partitions against his/her will, but it was not possible to take the body of the victim D (the age of 21)
Ultimately, the Defendant attempted to take photographs of another person’s body, which may cause sexual humiliation or shame, against the latter’s will, by using a camera or other similar mechanism, but did not bring about such intent.
Inasmuch as the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial on the market, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected to be guilty even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
The defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the fact that the defendant entered the instant female toilet and posted a cell phone separated from the side partitions, but claimed that he was aware of the fact that the defendant was placed in the instant female toilet and entered the female toilet, and that he did not have any intention to photograph the victim while she was able to look back to the female toilet when she was able to do so.
Although it is impossible to confirm whether a mobile phone device of the defendant following the day of the case was changed and actually taken, since the victim consistently made a consistent statement that the mobile phone of the defendant's mobile phone towards the above Kameras was in excess of the toilet partitions, it is doubtful whether the defendant tried to take the body of the victim.