The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) ① The lower court rejected the credibility of the statement on the grounds that G was in the state of boom, but the fact that G was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case is true, but it seems that G was relatively clearly memoryed about the situation where the next table and the trial expenses were in progress, and ② the Defendant suffered damage.

In the “O restaurant” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), the Defendant and G did not have any record that only the Defendant and G were in existence, because daily activities, such as K and L, were going through and seated with the instant restaurant. In the event that G is accompanied by the table table and trial expenses, M, the owner of the instant restaurant, and according to the Defendant’s assertion, at the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant “hick,” and at the time of the Defendant’s argument:

In addition to the size of the restaurant of this case (not less than four strings, and not far from the kitchen table where M was working) and the size of the tables where the Defendant was living together (not less than six strings, and the number of the Defendant’s daily behaviors were immediately on the side) in the above circumstances, it would be too exceptional in light of the empirical rule that any person, among those on the scene, was unable to witness the forced indecent act of G. ③ immediately after the instant case, the Defendant finished drinking alcohol at N’s house with N, and the Defendant stated to the effect that “it was difficult to view that there was no mention about the indecent act of G,” and that “the Defendant did not have any mention about the indecent act of G,” and that “the Defendant was forced to do so,” and that “the Defendant was forced to do so,” and that he was forced to do so.