All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. Although the alleged defendant did not commit an indecent act by force, the lower court convicted him/her of the relevant facts charged by misapprehending the fact.

B. In a case where there are no new objective grounds that could affect the formation of evidence during the appellate trial’s trial process, and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the determination of evidence for the first instance was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the recognition of facts under the first instance deliberation shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the detailed circumstances in the item of “judgment on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” and convicted the relevant facts charged.

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 no new objective reason to affect the formation of evidence in the trial process of one court.

The judgment of the court below on this part is just and there are errors in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

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 twice by force, the lower court acquitted him/her of the relevant facts charged, by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court determined that the witness examination was conducted on two occasions, including the examination of G witnesses (the second examination of the witness examination of the G was conducted ex officio and investigated) and “non-crimes.”