According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he committed indecent act by force, there is an error of misconception of facts in the court below which acquitted the defendant.

Judgment

Of the evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, the court below held that ① E’s statement was in the way in which anyone can have access to the clothing store operated by the defendant of a corporation which is located within the district, and the entrance of the clothing store was opened at the above temporary border, and the above place was directly connected from the entrance and exit, and it is a corridor within a several sponsed spons, which is far away from the entrance and exit, so that anyone can see the above place without special attention, and it is not entirely concealed the place of crime, and it is not recognized that the defendant committed the same crime as stated in the facts charged, even though there is sufficient possibility of having access to witness of another third party. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20348, Feb. 19, 200; Presidential Decree No. 20720, Mar. 14, 200>

“A statement is inconsistent with the statement to the effect that “A” was made, and it is difficult to believe in light of the fact that “A” filed a report on damage on September 7, 2013, which was three days after the date of the crime, by asserting that the injury, such as the facts charged, was suffered. ② The F made a statement to the effect that “A” was aware of the fact that E was subject to indecent act, such as the facts charged, only when E was found with the police in the original court, but E was aware of the fact that E was subject to such indecent act as stated in the facts charged.