The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of mistake of facts, F, I, etc. stated that both the Defendant and the person requesting a probation order (hereinafter “Defendant”) have threatened the victim by harming the victim at the time.

In light of the fact that the contents of the statement are consistent and it is difficult to find the motive or reason for the statement in a false manner, the above victim's statement can be sufficiently reliable.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the statements of the victim, etc. without reasonable grounds, and acquitted all of the instant selective charges.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence and affecting the judgment.

B. The victim of legal principles prepared a written statement on the day of the instant crime and expressed his intent to demand punishment against the Defendant by submitting it to an investigative agency.

However, on August 14, 2018, the victim became aware of the offender only when the defendant was specified as the offender based on DNA evidence, and on August 16, 2018, prior to the expiration of the filing period, the victim expressed his/her intent to demand the punishment of the defendant to the investigation agency.

Therefore, it can be seen that the victim's complaint was lawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed a public prosecution on the charge of indecent act by compulsion or attempted indecent act by compulsion, which was included in the selective charge of the instant case, on the ground that there was no legitimate accusation.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to complaint upon victim's complaint, which affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On September 9, 2008, around 01:30 on September 9, 2008, the Defendant discovered the victim C (here, 29 years of age) returning home in the street near Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and committed an indecent act against the victim’s property by taking the victim’s property forcibly following the victim.

The defendant is about 200 meters away from the victim.