In other words, the court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case even though it could acknowledge the fact that the victim defames the victim by openly pointing out false facts. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The court below acquitted the victim of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that the victim's statement in the investigative agency and witness E in the court of the court below and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to find the guilty of the facts charged in this case. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's above determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of the facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

1. On December 22, 2016, the victim received a written complaint on the day after three months of the occurrence of the instant case.

The victim was sexual harassment against the defendant in the criminal complaint and the first police investigation on December 28, 2016.

In the second police investigation conducted on February 22, 2017, “I am not to commit any sexual indecent act before the management office around September 23, 2016” (Evidence 2:5,29). The Defendant stated that “I am not to commit any sexual indecent act before the management office around September 23, 2016;

In this way, whether the body in question remains incomplete or not

“E stated that it was in its place “(i.e., one right 7 pages of evidence record).”

On April 18, 2018, a witness in the court of original instance shall be present at the court of original instance on April 18, 2018.

Sexual harassment must be the gue of sexual harassment.

p. He shall not, if represented by him.

4. Sheet Sheet Sheet me can not be seen as "weld" and "weld".