The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the facts.

The victim has consistently stated from investigative agencies to the court of the court below that the defendant continued to meet the victim's right buckbucks.

Considering the fact that the victim resisted the defendant at the site and reported to the police, the victim's statement has credibility.

B. The victim first met the Defendant on the day of the instant case, and the husband was also the same at the site.

There is no reason to say that the victim was sexual harassmentd at the risk of numerical learning by falsity or report to the police.

C. Even in cases of CCTV images installed in the rororoop weste (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), the Defendant spawned down even if he was spawed in the direction of the victim, and left hand spawed under the table table, the Defendant spawed and spawd down the spawd below the table table, and the spawd below the victim’s spawd, and fit the victim’s statement on his behalf.

2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

When examining the following facts and circumstances in light of the circumstances stated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, so the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

In the instant restaurant, several CCTVs were installed, and there were three CCTVs taken by the Defendant and the victim. However, the Defendant entered the victim in the facts charged.