beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the facts charged of this case on the ground that each of the statements made by the victim, F, and E is consistent and reliable in the main parts of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding). As such, although the defendant was found to have committed an indecent act by force as stated in the facts charged of this case, the judgment of the court below
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the investor of the “C” Co., Ltd. with the second floor in Gunsan City, and the victim D (name, leisure, age 47) is the employee of the said company.
On March 1, 2018, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim three times in total from the beginning of April 2018, by committing an indecent act against the victim, by making the victim known the method of executing the c's c's c's c's c's c' office (hereinafter referred to as the "C office") with the second floor of the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si (hereinafter referred to as the "victim office") and making the victim known the c's c's c', and by making the victim known the c's c's c'.
B. On the following grounds, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of indecent act by force, such as the entries in the instant facts charged, was proven without any reasonable doubt.
1) As to the indecent act of the Defendant, D expressed his/her memory several times as the receipt of the complaint, the receipt of the case at the military police station, the statement at the police station, the response in civil procedure, the statement at the prosecution and the statement at the court of original instance. However, there are not many differences in the date and time of indecent act, the situation at the time of the indecent act, and the contents of indecent act, etc., and in particular, even though he/she made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was injured” at the time of November 11, 2019 and the prosecutor’s investigation at the prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da448, Nov. 14, 2019) were made, the complaint submitted on November 4, 2020; and 200Da448, Jun. 6, 2018.