The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 01:00 on April 17, 2014, the Defendant: (b) her son’s son, who had talked around the kitchen while drinking a toilet in the D cafeteria located in the Gu-U.S. Si; and (c) her son’s son’s son, who had talked around the kitchen.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the records, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant had no intention to do so.

① The Defendant consistently stated in the police and this court that the victim was faced with the victim, but only some of them did not engage in such conduct.

② In this court, the victim saw that the Defendant’s her her m, which was sleeped to the right from the left side of the victim’s her m, and that the Defendant’s her m, which read that her m, was defective, the Defendant’s her m, and the Defendant’s mar on the mar toilet was her slick, not because the Defendant’s mar was her slick, but was unable to avoid a disturbance by causing the Defendant’s slicking and destroying the mar

③ The proprietor of the above restaurant stated in this Court that the Defendant’s hand did not see that the Defendant’s hand was in contact with the victim’s her son, and that the victim got sound after the lapse of the Defendant, and that the Defendant was her son.

④ The victim’s one-way G police also made a statement that is similar to the above F’s statement.

⑤ The Defendant stated to the effect that the passage of the Defendant was not broad (see, e.g., 56 pages of investigation records) and that both the victim and F may cause physical contact with the victim due to narrow passage in this court.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.