The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds (misunderstanding of facts) and the victim F were frequently sexual intercourses during the period of which the victim was sexual intercourse, but did not allow the victim to take his body parts or sexual intercourses which may cause a sense of sexual shame to the defendant, and the victim showed sexual intercourses with G at the time when the victim shows sexual dynamic images of the mobile phone to G, which the G “I YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

In full view of the following facts: (a) the video images claimed by the Defendant were not restored; (b) the police did not analyze the digital evidence of the aforementioned mobile phone; and (c) the prosecution conducted the analysis of the digital evidence at the police; (d) the video images taken by the female chests, etc. in addition to the photographs restored by the police, were restored; (e) four of the video images taken by the victim’s sexual intercourses with the female and the sexual intercourses were restored to another technical problem after deletion; and (e) the Defendant’s mobile analysis of the mobile phones appears to have not been restored to another technical problem after deletion; and (e) the photograph taken by several women’s chests, fluor, etc. and the video images taken by the Defendant were found in a sexual intercourse with the female and the sexual intercourse with the victim, as described in the facts charged, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant taken the body of the victim from the chest to the buckbucker and the victim and the sexual intercourse with the female.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination