강제추행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant committed an indecent act by force as stated in the facts charged of this case, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and acquitted the defendant of the part other than the facts charged of this case.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged of this case was around 06:30 on May 17, 2014, at the victim E (the son F of the victim work at the same workplace as the defendant was aware of the fact that the victim’s husband F was in his house at the time, and entered the house with the mind that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act against the victim. The defendant was inside the house with the victim, and the victim was inside the house with the victim, and the victim was inside the house with the victim’s body, coming to the ward with the victim’s body, coming to the victim’s body, coming to the ward with the victim’s walk, coming to the victim’s body, coming to the victim’s son, and coming to the victim’s son. The victim took the panty part in the victim’s part, she was forced to leave the victim’s house with the victim’s her escape, and she took the victim’s her part in the kitchen, and she was within the kitchen of the victim.
B. The lower court determined: (a) in the case of indecent acts outside the house, there was an indecent act committed by the Defendant and the victim when all the statements made by the Defendant and the victim were made in the house; and (b) subsequently, the fact that the victimized person entered the house by responding to the Defendant’s request was consistent with the fact that the victimized person entered into the house; (c) it is difficult to view that the victimized person was committed an indecent act to the same extent as the written facts in the indictment, if the victimized person was sexually committed in the Mara, 19