The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor who submitted the summary of the grounds for appeal, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, who was under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged, but the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the victim was in the state of failing to resist at the time, and the fact that the defendant committed an indecent act such as the statement in the facts charged, cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to feel true that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is no doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.

The court below held that the evidence as shown in the facts charged of this case contains the statements made by the victim at the court of the court below and the investigative agency; however, the victim is present at the court of the court below at the time of the court below and the victim does not memory with respect to a large part of the specific situation. The victim still has confirmed the content of the statement prepared by the investigative agency and made a different statement about the important part of the damage caused by indecent act. The facts stated by the victim are contrary to objective evidence, such as the recipient's burden service (F), the appraisal result by the appraiser of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Research, and the victim's response attitude or first boarding on the taxi.