The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. On July 30, 2017, the Defendant, at around 04:30 on July 30, 2017, exceeded the clothes of the victim D (V, 25 years of age) and had sexual intercourse once with the victim, who was temporarily locked due to being imprisoned at the dwelling located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon C 302.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the victim's mental or physical loss or non-refluence status.

2. Although the Defendant and his defense counsel had a sexual intercourse with the victim at the time and place stated in the facts charged of the instant case, this is limited to the agreement with the victim.

3. Determination

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be established based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or uncomfortablely unfortunately unfortunateed, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). In particular, where the defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the victim’s statement is de facto only based on direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in the records, in order to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the victim’s statement, high probative value is required to have little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether there is such probative value, the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness, etc. of the victim’s statement itself should be comprehensively taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1461, May 2013).

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence investigated by the court.