The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following: (a) at the time of the first preliminary interview held by the police prior to the misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant stated that the Defendant inserted his sexual organ into the victim’s sound book at the time of the first preliminary interview; and (b) the statement analysis expert and professional examiners expressed their opinions that the credibility of the victim’s statement regarding the insertion of sexual organ may be recognized; and (c) the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) to whom the Defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an order to attach an electronic device (hereinafter

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a 7 years of imprisonment, 120 hours of imprisonment) is too unfasible and unfair.

(b) There is a danger that part of the case of the request for attachment order and the request for protective observation order has committed two sexual crimes against a victim under the age of 19 and has committed the sexual crimes again, and that the criminal defendant has committed the sexual crimes again;

Therefore, it is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for the attachment order of this case and the request for the observation order of protection.

2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. The burden of proving the criminal facts charged in a criminal trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts lies on the prosecutor, and the finding of guilt must be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1507, Jul. 24, 2014). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the police who inserted the victim's sexual character into the victim's sound book, and each statement from the prosecutor's office is difficult to believe it as is, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is different.