The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction with respect to the charge of forced indecent acts among the instant facts charged, and rendered a judgment of acquittal with respect to the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts, such as deceptive schemes against

Therefore, since only the prosecutor appealed on the part of innocence on the ground of mistake of fact, the above guilty part of the judgment of the court below is separated and determined as it is and excluded from the judgment of this court.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Although the alleged defendant was found to have committed an indecent act by force against the victim E, who is a victim with intellectual disability third degree of disability, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. In a case where there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the determination of a documentary evidence for the first instance was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of a fact is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the determination on the recognition of the facts of the first instance deliberation shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court’s judgment is “not guilty portion” of the judgment.

2. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone based on the detailed circumstances in the item of “determination” was proved without reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the disabled person.

It is difficult to see

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

In this part of the judgment of the court below, there is no reasonable reason to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is a new objective reason that may affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process of one court.