강제추행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) and the facts charged concerning each forced indecent act for which the judgment of the court below rendered not guilty (the facts charged as of June 15, 2014; the facts charged as of July 24, 2014; the facts charged as of July 30, 2014; and the facts charged as of July 30, hereinafter “each of the facts charged”) identified the victims as offenders in the criminal identification procedure; the victims’ physical strength, height, age, and compensation similar to the victims; the crime committed each of the facts charged and indecent act committed by the Defendant committed by the victim were committed in a short time and the criminal law similar to the applicable criminal law. In light of the above facts, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. In the relevant legal doctrine, the recognition of a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge be aware that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent of having the aforementioned conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or unfolded face, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). Meanwhile, in order to enhance the credibility of witness’s statement in the criminal identification procedure, the witness’s statement or description as to the offender’s appearance should be recorded in advance in detail, including the suspect, and the suspect, and other persons similar to the witness’s appearance should not be contacted with each other in advance, and the result and value of evidence should not be evaluated after the fact.