The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Considering the fact that the victim is only 35 months after the birth of the victim at the time of the instant case, the victim's video recording statement at the time of the instant case shall be deemed to have sufficient credibility.

At the time of this case, the father of the victim showed that the defendant was able to contact the victim's body, such as taking the victim's bridge.

The victim stated that the mother of the victim was damaged immediately after the instant case.

It is difficult to find a motive for the victim's parents to dismiss the defendant.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor revealed that the Defendant had committed indecent act by compulsion.

Judgment

In light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as a post facto trial even after the fact that it has the nature of a post facto trial and the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing a faithful examination of evidence, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt caused by the first instance trial as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, it is reasonable to conclude that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of proof of crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016). Examining the records in light of the records based on the above legal principles, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone based on the reasons stated in its reasoning is insufficient

In addition, there is no new evidence to reverse the judgment of the court below in the appellate trial.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as alleged by the prosecutor.