The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant, a senior distributing company, worked as a director in B, from October 2016 to November 1, 2016, was dispatched to D’s restaurant located in the Kimpo-si, where the Defendant supplied meat from B, and the victim E (the above victim’s age is indicated as “17 years old,” but according to the statement in Articles 6 and 13 of the evidence record No. 2, the victim was clearly 16 years old at the time of committing the crime as stated in the facts charged in this case’s indictment, and thus, the victim’s ex officio corrected and stated it as above.) was employed in the above restaurant.

Around 22:00 on October 2016, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, who was a child or juvenile, on a total of five occasions during the period from around 22:00 to January 20, 2017, on the following grounds: (a) on the day when it is impossible to know the date of the middle order; (b) on the 5 table of the above restaurant, the Defendant was able to write down the victim’s buck; (c) on the victim’s hand, she was able to write down the victim’s buck; and (d) on the part of the victim, she was able to cover the victim’s shoulder with his/her left arms.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion did not constitute an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

B. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in the relevant criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, 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 where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In particular, the Defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the facts charged in the records.