The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal (fact-finding) is that the police consistently states the situation at the time from the time to the court of original trial, and it is impossible for the defendant who was behind the left part of C to contact C’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the facts charged of this case.

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s statement alone is insufficient to recognize that there was an intentional indecent act against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. In particular, the lower court stated in the police that “I asked the Defendant to see why I would see why I would see why I would be why I see?” (No. 10 pages of the evidence record) and stated in the court that “I would like to see why I would see the Defendant? I would like to see that I would have her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her.” (No. 62 pages of the trial record), and stated that “I would her her her her her her her her her her her her her her his her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her...................”