2019Gohap262 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a place of public gathering)

Indecent Acts in this section)

A

Ma-Seng (Public Trial) and Doese (Public Trial)

Attorney Kim beneficiary-young (National Election)

September 3, 2019

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On September 9, 2018, 2018, 22:50, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in a place where the victim B (the age 39) was divided into her seat and her seat, her seat, which was driven by subway 2 lines in the direction of the same new forest station in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, with the center of guest rooms in the front of subway 2 lines.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001).

B. From the above perspective, in light of the following circumstances revealed in the records and pleadings, it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

○ immediately after the instant case, the Defendant consistently denied the Defendant’s criminal act from the time the victim raised a problem to the investigative agency and this court. The Defendant stated that, within the mixed subway, the Defendant’s left hand in contact with the victim’s body, etc., did not commit an indecent act by dividing the victim’s tam into the victim’s hand room, such as the record of the facts charged.

○ The victim immediately brought an issue to the Defendant, i.e., immediately facing the body of the Defendant, and the Defendant respondeded with the victim, such as humpinging the victim. However, even if the victim was humping around, it seems that there was no person who made a statement, such as the Defendant’s witness to indecent act against the victim, even though the victim was humping.

After raising the issue of the victim, the Defendant continued to get off the CCTV from the victim and the subway station, and the police officer who received the victim’s report asserted that the victim’s failure to escape or avoid his/her duties until being called out, and also demanded the police officer dispatched to check CCTV images inside the train. However, the investigative agency has passed seven days after the CCTV storage period was 7 days after the CCTV image storage period, and did not secure the relevant images as evidence.

The victim consistently stated the facts of his own damage from the investigation stage to the present court, but did not directly witness the work that occurred behind the victim. However, it is difficult to completely eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding the possibility that the defendant under the influence of alcohol would have contacted the body of the victim due to the intention to move in the subway.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58

Judge Meritorious decoration