The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of the legal principles) is that the CCTV images of this case submitted by the victim were compiled in front and rear from among the CCTV images in which the victim was the place of crime, even if they were edited in front and rear, they are not operated by the video itself, but only parts of the original images were copied. According to the result of appraisal, the CCTV images of this case cannot be discovered in a trace of the content itself. Thus, the identity or integrity of the original images was proven.

Therefore, the CCTV images of this case are admissible as evidence, and according to the CCTV images of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant on the charge of committing an indecent act against the victim under the influence of alcohol. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility of digital evidence, thereby misunderstanding the facts.

2. The Defendant is the representative director of Co., Ltd. in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim D (V, 29 years of age) is the shareholder of the above company.

On August 18, 2016, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s mental disorder or the state of failing to resist, while drinking together with the victim, G, etc., who was sitting in the right side of the Defendant, while drinking together with the victim and the above company’s attached group G, etc., the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s mental disorder or the state of failing to resist.

3. The lower court determined that the principal evidence of the facts charged of this case is a video file stored in CCTV video CD (Evidence No. 5, and Evidence No. 48) (hereinafter “the video file of this case”). The victim took a duplicate of the original video file from the owner of the business who was the victim, and submitted it to the USB by specifying only the part in which the indecent act was committed during the file, and the video file of this case cannot be used as evidence because it cannot be deemed that the identity of the integrity is proven, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient.