Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below judged otherwise and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

1) On June 3, 2014, the Defendant submitted a complaint to the Mapo Police Station Support Center for the victims of sexual assault against women and women in the Mapo Police Station to the effect that C was forced to commit an indecent act, such as coercioning to himself/herself (hereinafter “instant case”) around May 26, 2014, around 22:30-23:10.

2) On February 23, 2015, the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office G sent the instant case to the effect that there was no suspicion due to insufficient evidence as to February 23, 2015. The Defendant filed a complaint with Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office on March 10, 2015 on the said non-prosecution decision (insufficient evidence) but was dismissed on April 16, 2015.

After May 8, 2015, Defendant filed an application with the Seoul High Court for adjudication on the above dismissal ruling, but was dismissed on August 2015.

3) On January 25, 2016, C submitted to the Seoul Central District District Public Prosecutor's Office a petition stating that the Defendant had no choice but to himself as stated in the foregoing paragraph 1.

Since then, the appeal filed by C to the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office was dismissed on November 8, 2016. However, the final application for adjudication filed by C on November 17, 2016 was accepted, and the instant indictment was made on February 24, 2017.

B. The difference between the lower court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony of the witness in the lower court’s relevant legal doctrine is the substantial adoption of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act.