1. In full view of the police of the victim and the statement in the court of the court below as well as the notice of the result of the psychological and biological examination on the defendant (the result of the examination on the defendant's fraudulent detection), the facts charged of the case can be acknowledged that the defendant committed an indecent act on the victim's right side, left chest, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, and it erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In order to admit admissibility as evidence with factual relevance to the result of the examination of the detection device, first, a change in a certain psychological condition must occur if a false statement is made, second, a change in the psychological condition must be caused by a certain physiological reaction, third, a accurate determination of whether the speech of the person is false or not by the physiological reaction should be met. In particular, the determination of whether the last physiological reaction is false or not must be a device that can accurately measure the physiological reaction of the person who has consented to the examination. In particular, the determination of whether the last physiological reaction is false or not should be a device that can accurately measure the biological reaction of the person who has consented to the examination. The determination of the contents of the questioning and the techniques and methods of the examination should be reasonable. The accuracy can be secured only when the inspector has the ability to objectively and accurately read the measuring content of the detection device. Thus, unless the prosecutor satisfies various requirements such as the above, the result of the examination of the false statement can not be admitted as evidence under the Criminal Procedure Act.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of paternity, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.