2. Around 00:30 on Jan. 13, 2004, the summary of the facts charged charged: (a) the Defendant, at the main toilets of the name-based B B, i.e., the Government-si, namely, “A” and five female-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-at-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-

3. The court below rendered a judgment of not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the investigation records for the verification of the facts charged in this case were destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period and there was no other evidence to prove the facts charged. In full examination of the records of this case, the court below's decision of not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the basis of the above circumstances is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts pointed out by the prosecutor as pointed out by the court below

Therefore, prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

[This case was decided to recover the defendant's right to claim formal trial on November 19, 2012 upon the defendant's request (the court's district court 2012 early 1504, and the prosecutor's failure to file an immediate appeal) and the above decision became final and conclusive. Since the defendant had already paid a fine on November 8, 2004, the decision to recover the above right to claim formal trial was unfair and made through the payment of the fine.