The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged of this case on a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, despite the fact that the Defendant could have sufficiently recognized that the Defendant detained the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case and committed indecent act by force.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the ground that the direct evidence consistent with the facts charged of this case is only the victim B’s investigative agency and the court below’s legal statement. Considering the following circumstances revealed by the record, it is difficult to believe B’s statement and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

1) B made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant: (a) at the time of the instant case, left his own vehicle as it was; (b) running the vehicle from the back of the L apartment distance to the back of the L apartment; (c) the Defendant was forced to attach the vehicle to the vehicle when he was in front of the signal atmosphere; and (d) the Defendant was unable to drive the vehicle on his own; (b) however, according to CCTV images near the L apartment, the relevant vehicle was not stopped according to the signal, but intentionally stopped, and was in the place for about 15 minutes after stopping; and (c) even after stopping, it does not seem to have requested the Defendant to flee from the vehicle or to assist the neighbors; and (d) the Defendant did not appear to have been forced to board the vehicle. (b) The Defendant parked the Fdong Office and the vehicle working at B after leaving the back to the Fdong Office and the vehicle to which the Defendant intended to detain, and returned to the Defendant’s workplace B and the Defendant returned to B.

3B returned to the near the Fdong Office.