1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below on the grounds of the prosecutor's appeal, the court below held that the doctor's act conducted in the medical treatment and treatment process for the body of the patient may be misunderstood or criticized due to an indecent act in accordance with the patient's awareness. Thus, there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that it can be evaluated as an indecent act committed under the intention to infringe the patient's sexual freedom beyond the scope of treatment or treatment beyond the scope of treatment. In a case where the prosecutor's proof does not reach the degree sufficient to have conviction as to that point, the whole treatment process should be judged as the defendant's interest even if the whole treatment process is not somewhat open to a certain degree, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was based on the premise that the defendant's act committed in the medical treatment process for the victims against the victims, which constitutes a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children against Sexual Abuse (indecent Acts, such as deceptive means) of the Act on the Protection of Children from Sexual Abuse against the victim K's sexual harassment or an indecent act committed by the defendant without any reasonable presumption of the facts charged.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court.