The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds (the fact-finding person) stated the facts of damage specifically and consistently from the investigative agency to the court below’s original trial; F refers to the fact of damage by calls to his mother immediately after the indecent act was committed on April 9, 2015, and on the day, the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife became knee and kneeel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel knel knel knel knel knel knels on the video of CCTV CD; although the Defendant was not recorded on the video of CCTV, the head of the Defendant was recorded on the face of a physical contact more than necessary, but the Defendant did not have a face of an indecent act; I’s statement was written in I’s name by adding the Defendant’s defense counsel’s arbitrarily and it was difficult for I to believe that the Defendant’s statement was an instructor employed by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not-guilty verdict on all the charges of this case.

2. As to the indecent act by force on November 1, 2014, the lower court stated to the effect that “The Defendant was guilty that the Defendant was an intentional indecent act on November 1, 2014,” but the Defendant did not believe that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act on April 9, 2015, on the ground that “The fact was frighted and frighted while drinking fright’s chest while drinking fright.” However, the lower court did not believe that the Defendant was a video recording act on April 9, 2015, claiming that the Defendant was only fright, and that the Defendant was not frighted.”