All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (limited to six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the prosecutor’s (misunderstanding of facts about Defendant B) victim A and witness I’s statement in a specific and consistent manner, and in light of the medical certificate with respect to Defendant B and the medical doctor’s statement supporting this, the facts charged against Defendant B should be found guilty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the Defendant cannot be found guilty even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court shall not be found guilty of the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). 2) In so doing, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court did so.