Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act by force against the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence in determining the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., a fine of KRW 3 million) of the lower court (e.g., a fine of KRW 3 million, and 40 hours of orders to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the appellate court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the judgment of the court below, but it has the so-called ex post facto review character that has a substantial part of the ex post facto review elements, and thus, the appellate court should consider the characteristics of the structure of the first instance judgment

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, the first instance court's decision was clearly erroneous in the first instance court's decision when it is intended to re-examine the first instance court's decision ex post facto and ex post facto.

There should be reasonable grounds to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is not against logical and empirical rules to maintain the decision as it is, and there should be no reasonable grounds to reverse the decision on the fact-finding of the first instance court without such exceptional circumstances.

In principle, it is consistent with the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination, which serves as the basis of trial-oriented principle that the conviction or innocence of a criminal case should be formed by a court hearing, and only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court. However, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. As to the said assertion, the Defendant’s “Defendant and the