The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the statements, etc. by adult reference witnesses who can make an objective statement, the Defendant committed emotional abuse, such as the entries in the facts charged.

In addition, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In a case where there are no new objective grounds that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and there are no reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of a documentary evidence for the first instance was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first instance deliberation shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court is not guilty.

2. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the basis of the detailed circumstances stated in the “judgment” cannot be recognized as the Defendant’s act of emotional abuse against the victims who are children.

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

In this part of the judgment of the court below, there is no reasonable reason to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of evidence in the trial process of one court.

The judgment of the court below on this part is just and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

We do not accept the prosecutor's assertion.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).