Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by a probation order requester and a prosecutor are dismissed.

In this case.

Of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court determined that the Defendant and the person requesting the probation order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) did not constitute an indecent act or sexual abuse even though recognizing the fact that the Defendant and the person requesting the probation order (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) have caused the victim to kisk a kiss, on the first place in 2013.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant continuously and repeatedly committed sexual assault and sexual abuse against the victim from the date immediately after the date of the crime indicated in the facts charged in the instant case to January 2016; (b) the victim consistently stated that kisk was kis against his/her will; and (c) the Defendant and the victim consistently stated that kisk was kis against kis; (d) the Defendant and the victim did not request kis kis, but did not have a high friendly density as much as they requested

Judgment

In light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as a post facto trial even after the judgment of the court of first instance, and the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as a witness, if it does not reach the extent to sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt causing the first instance trial as a result of the examination of the appellate court, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to the conclusion that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of evidence for a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016). The lower court did not find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by deeming that there was an act of assault or intimidation in the course of demanding the victim to have k