The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On May 23, 2018, at around 08:25, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in any means of public transportation where approximately seven minutes of the sexual organs are closely concentrated, such as rain, rain, etc., in a 120-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and subway 4-line sexual intercourse, with the 308-ro, Seoul Jongno-gu, and the Donggate Station (hereinafter “instant electric vehicle”), within the electric dong-dong (hereinafter “instant electric vehicle”), the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in any means of public transportation where the victim’s sexual organs are closely concentrated.

2. Determination:

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is any doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable, the determination should be made in the interest of the defendant, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487 Decided April 28, 201, etc.) B.

Although the Defendant had a physical contact with the victim without intent in the congested subway, the Defendant consistently denied the crime with the purport that there was no intentional indecent act on the part of the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

C. According to the witness D’s statement in the second protocol of the trial, the Defendant’s partial statement, the witness C’s statement in the second protocol of the trial, and the third protocol of the trial, the Defendant appeared to have been unable to understand, such as: (a) getting off in the Alin Seoul subway Station 4 Line Station on the day of the instant case but getting off in the opposite direction, getting off the electric vehicle in the opposite direction; and (b) going back to the East capital.

As to the above circumstances of action, the Defendant, at the prosecutor’s office, recommended that “Apryp and food cancer surgery was conducted before ice,” and the doctor recommended that “ Hepying will be done by viewing a healthy person.”

The Defendant.