A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim at the time of the instant case was in an impossible condition to resist, and the Defendant could sufficiently be found to have committed an indecent act by using this, the credibility of the victim’s statement is denied, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it.

In light of the above, the court below found the defendant not guilty of an indecent act against the defendant.

There is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts in the original judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed an indecent act by taking advantage of the state in which the victimized person was deprived of awareness at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, based on the comprehensive consideration of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated.

2) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct deliberation principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court witness in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial ends, the appellate court reverses without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment.