The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged of this case. However, despite the credibility of the victim's statement due to credibility, the court below rejected the victim's statement without reasonable grounds and found the lack of evidence to acknowledge the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to add the ancillary facts charged as stated in the facts charged in the original trial while maintaining the original facts charged as the main facts charged at the trial. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, even if there is a reason to reverse ex officio as above, the reason for appeal against the primary facts charged by the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the primary facts charged

A. At around 01:50 on May 19, 201, the Defendant: (a) committed an indecent act by force against the victim by inserting his hand over the panty line by inserting it into the panty line of the victim F (the 26-year-old age), which had been singing out of the 2nd floor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, with a show that the Defendant did not drink in the Esing room; (b) first, the Defendant did not sing out the 26th floor of the instant facts charged; and (c) committed an indecent act on the part of the victim by inserting the hand in the panty line.

B. In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or the result of the first instance examination and the further examination of evidence conducted between the closing of argument in the appellate trial