In light of the fact that E, a victim, was demanded to leave the new wall 5 clocks on the ground that it was too long time within the convenience store, the victim, committed an indecent act by the Defendant, and reported the Defendant as 112, even after having been committed an indecent act by the Defendant. Considering the age, time, and emergency situation at the time of E, E’s testimony is consistent from the police stage to the court below’s decision, and thus, the facts charged in the instant case where the Defendant committed indecent act by force by force by force was found guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

However, the court below determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that E was indecent act on the part of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that E was indecent act on the part of the defendant, taking full account of the following: (a) whether the victim E-friendly G was a witness of the indecent act; (b) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant; and (c) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant; (d) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant; and (e) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant; and (e) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant; and (e) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant; and (e) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant; and (e) whether the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is inconsistent with objective CCTV data; (e) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant; and (e) whether E was an indecent act on the part of the defendant.

The court below and the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, and according to G's legal statement in G, which had been together with E, the defendant was suffering from her her mar and her her mar. The defendant made a statement.