The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On January 9, 2014, at around 18:15, the Defendant dju store located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, drinked the victim E (n, 24 years of age) and the 3 soldiers of small liquor, and dynasium in “G” located in the same Gu F at around 21:30, the Defendant dynas and dynas week 1,000 meters of the victim and small week.

The defendant had the mind to have sexual intercourse with the victim in a state where the victim was unable to keep his mind properly, and had the victim go at the main point of around 00:53 on January 10, 2014 and around 01:28 on around 01:28, "I" in the same Gu H.

On January 10, 2014, at around 01:28, the Defendant entered a guest room in the upper telecom 703, and got the victim from leaving the room. The victim of the motor vehicle in the lacing mind changed the motor vehicle into a corridor in the front body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of

The defendant has sexual intercourse once with the victim who has once lost his mind or was in a state of mental disorder due to drinking.

2. The Defendant’s defense counsel had sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim when the victim was aware of.

First of all, the victim proposed that the defendant go back to the telecom, and the victim went back from the time of entering the telecom to the time of getting off the elevator and getting back to the guest room.

The Defendant and the victim naturally followed one another, and the Defendant did not have a sexual intercourse because they did not have a sexual intercourse. Since then, the Defendant and the victim had a sexual intercourse between 5-6 and 5-6 p.m. in diving.

3. In a criminal trial for determination, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant is between the suspect and the suspect.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010).