The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of the victim and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged.

2. On February 18, 2017, at around 00:20, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim D (L, 38 years of age) who was drinking in the Defendant’s side at the main place where “C” located in Busan Shipping Daegu, at around 00:20, the Defendant committed an indecent act in the instant charges by setting the victim’s knife at one time with his knife, knife, back to the victim, and knife knife with knife with knife at one time with knife with knife.

3. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). Also, considering the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct trial adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, taking into account the result of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined by the time of closing argument in the appellate