2. As to the facts charged that Defendant A’s patent insultd the victim H by stating to the victim that “Chewing year, embezzled year, and embezzled year,” and Defendant B also read to the victim “the victim as the subject of embezzlement, embling public funds embezzlement, and if quid pro quo did not reach the victim’s body,” the lower court determined that each of the victim’s and witness’s statements is difficult to prove that there is no reasonable doubt as to the remainder of the facts charged of this case, and that there is no evidence to prove otherwise, based on the following circumstances: (a) the victim’s statement and witness I are different; (b) the victim’s statement are different; (c) the victim’s statement and witness I’s statement are different; (d) the victim’s statement are deemed to contravene the empirical rule; and (e) the Defendants’ statement appears to have not been made directly in the presence of the victim; and (e) it is difficult to verify the above desire due to the lack of the recording of the recording file submitted by the Defendants; and (e) it is difficult to deem the remainder of the facts charged.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, even if based on all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as properly stated in the court below, it is difficult to recognize that the defendants were sexually insultingd to the victim as stated in the facts charged.