The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged in this case and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor conducted No. 4 of the facts constituting the offence stated in the indictment at the trial of the party, which led the victim to an indecent act by force, as stated in the victim’s left her mare.

“In his/her hands,” the victim was forced to commit an indecent act in a manner that makes the victim’s left traw.

The judgment of the court below was no longer maintained, as the amendment of the bill of amendment was applied to "," and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake on the facts of the judgment below is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, and this will result in

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On June 26, 2014, the Defendant, at around 21:57, committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim E (hereinafter “D”) who is an employee of the said “D main shop,” while suffering from this short half of the said “D main shop,” while leaving the stairs leading to the second floor of the “D main shop,” in Busan-gu Seoul-do, Busan-gu, Seoul-do, on June 26, 2014.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value that leads a judge to have a conviction that is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to a conviction, the determination should be based on the benefit of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do15767, Feb. 13, 2014) and the trial court.