In addition, in full view of the statements of the relevant witnesses including each copy of the case admissible as above, the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant could have obstructed the work of the victims as stated in the facts charged, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Of the evidence as to the facts charged of this case, the court below held that ① in the case of each copy of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the original was made by copying the contents of the original without any artificial modification, such as compilations, in the process of making the original recorded at the time of each act of the defendant as a copy of the original, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence from each copy of each copy, as well as the photographs capturing each of the above images is derived from each copy, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence. As above, it is reasonable to view that each investigation report (the audio video viewing report, the time and time of the act of the complainant, the statement of the complainant, and the date and time of the crime) made after viewing and recording the images without any admissibility as above, it is reasonable to view that there is no probative value or little low, and ② the statement of E, AI formation, and AJ's complaint are prepared in the same form and contents as to similar cases, and it is very low probative value as evidence to prove the specific act of the defendant.