The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant “whether there was a fact B in order to commit an indecent act against women in the next table” properly understand the purpose of questioning by the defense counsel and the prosecutor and, even though so, acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, there is an error of law by mistake of facts.

2. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal is not clear whether, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant, even based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, focuses on the situation of the side table table table, where the context of the entire examination was in question, and the Defendant also understood and responded to the examination, and whether B included the following table table from the entry of the prosecutor’s examination before the occurrence of a problem of the side table table table table to the subsequent table table table table table, and whether there was a fact that B had occurred on one occasion. The Defendant responded as stated in the facts charged.

Even if the purpose of the examination was erroneously understood, or the statement was made by mistake, and the false statement was made contrary to memory.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it was insufficient to deem that there was a criminal intent for perjury.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is that the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

The prosecutor asserts that the purpose of the inquiry made by the defense counsel and the prosecutor was “whether there was a fact that B had occurred in order to commit an indecent act against women in the next table,” and the defendant clearly understood and responded to this, so the judgment of the court below was not properly understood as the contents of the examination of witness. However, the summary of the facts charged in this case is different before the defendant contests B with D in relation to indecent act by compulsion.