beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds (misunderstanding of facts) argued that “The Defendant: (a) laid down the victim D, who was fluored in a toilet; (b) brought the Defendant’s mother and her mother into the toilet; (c) did not go her mother and her mother, and (d) did not go her; (d) but “F, a witness, tried to flee and reported to the police; and (d) observed the scene where the Defendant was posted.”
In light of the stated circumstances, in full view of the fact that it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s assertion as it is, the victim was committed by the Defendant immediately after the escape and talked about the fact that the Defendant was forced to commit an indecent act to F, and the Defendant knew of the fact that the police report was made by the Defendant, and 1 km away from a narrow channel immediately after the escape, rather than a general taxi, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force, such as written in the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.
2. The lower court held that D’s statement in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court, which directly admitted as evidence supporting the facts charged of the instant case, is flexible; however, D’s initial statement at the police station, “The Defendant entered the lower court as a toilet at the lower time and sealed the lower court in the first column of female toilets.”
The defendant was pushed and pushed down his hand, the defendant was on the lower bucks, and the defendant was on the lower bucks, and the defendant was on the lower bucks.
On the other hand, the defendant went from the changed column due to his resistance, and he continued to put his mother, and the defendant went out of the toilet because he gets her mother and her mother in the changed toilet, and the defendant went out of the toilet.
After having made a statement to the effect that "," the prosecutor tried to enter the toilet change column in the prosecution, and the defendant.