성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강제추행)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is as follows: (a) 60m from the point where the victim was exposed to a guidance sign in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “branch”) to the victim’s house; (b) 18 minutes from the point where the victim was exposed to a domestic violence; (c) 18 minutes from the point where the victim was exposed to a domestic violence; (d) the victim opened a house without leaving the house to the house and unfrings sand, and (e) 2 minutes from the point where the defendant was exposed to a domestic violence; and (e) the time when the crime of this case occurred is 2 minutes from the point where the victim was collected; and (e) it is obvious that the victim was a criminal or a third party who was the offender, and (e) the victim appears to have appeared to have been present at least 2 minutes of the second 18 minutes, and (e) the victim was likely to have been present at least 3 minutes of the victim’s first 19 minutes and 24 minutes of the victim’s house.
In light of the fact that the time reported by the victim was around 04:50, the court below pointed out the possibility that the crime of this case occurred between the above 2th second 2th 2th 24 seconds, and that the victim's house was diverse routes to commit the crime, but it was possible for the victim to walk from the point where it occurred to the victim's house to the victim's house at least 2th 2th 24 seconds, but it was 2th 18 minutes since it was possible for the victim to walk from the point where it occurred to the victim's house at the point where it occurred, and the above judgment is contrary to the empirical rule, and the court below held that the third party is likely to be the criminal on the grounds that the defendant did not possess the bank of the victim, which is the stolen goods of this case, from the CCTV video screen that was taken early from the part where the defendant was exposed to a disaster.