The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the statements and field images of the police officer controlling the gist of the grounds for appeal, and the fact that the defendant tolds that “the defendant is sent to a crime immediately after the arrest of the defendant,” it is recognized that the defendant committed indecent act against the victim.

2. 1) Where an appellate court intends to re-examine a judgment of the first instance court after re-evaluation of the first instance court, even though there is no objective reason that may affect the formation of a conviction in the process of the trial, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of evidence or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair because it is contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc., and without such exceptional circumstances, the court should not reverse without permission the determination of the first instance court’s fact-finding without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). While there is a doubtful circumstance, such as where the Defendant’s body did not change the direction into a certain destination and repeated a subway, the lower court did not take the form of the victim’s son, but did not have any contact with the Defendant’s body, and it did not have any possibility that the police officer might not have any contact with the Defendant and the victim’s body.

In the 3rd trial, the witness E was additionally adopted and examined, and according to the statement, the defendant's act as a preliminary act of indecent act is that the defendant's act of indecent act was so called 'cipher' and ‘personal running', and the defendant's indecent act was also directly witnessed.

However, according to the CD images, the other person appearance is not visible, or E, in the nearest area where the victim and the defendant overlapped, and how E is.