The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Examining the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) and the following circumstances, the Defendant F (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) is a victim.

It is recognized that indecent conduct was committed.

① immediately after the victim was injured, the crime of this case was discovered by identifying that the victim was the Defendant and reporting to the police via the reporting telephone on the preceding dynamic vehicle.

(2) The police and the court of original instance may believe that the horses of a victim are specific and consistent.

③ At the time of damage, the previous plan was not in a complicated situation.

2. In full view of the reasons for innocence as revealed by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged.

The lower court’s determination is correct.

(1) At the time of damage, the inside of the boom was not forced to have physical contact with the former during the time of retirement, but the seat was left at all and there were many persons.

The victim committed an indecent act at the corner space between the entrance and the seat in the direction of the entrance when people board the E station.

In other words, there are several persons on board at the time, and there are many people on the side or back of the defendant in the electric vehicle.

② The victim seems to have not been able to grasp the movement of those in front of the entrance at the time of opening the entrance, and the movement of those in front of the entrance at the time of leaving the entrance.

③ Since the Defendant was only in the direction opposite to the victim who was facing the entrance, the Defendant appears to have been in the attitude of leaving the victim’s her her her m, as seen to have her her mar, and also her marries the object of the crime.