The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is as follows: (a) from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, the victim E (the age of 44) consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of original trial that “after the separation of conversations with the Defendant and F from the chemical team outside the courtroom to return to the sick room, the victim E (the age of 44) first expressed in order to return to the sick room first, she was able to she left the chemical team and she was her breast in his/her finger and her hands.” (b) the victim did not directly check the offender’s face at the right time immediately after the victim was committed, but was in a position to commit an indecent act; (c) the victim was only two persons with whom the victim was unable to check the offender’s face at the right time after the victim was committed; and (d) considering the Defendant’s statement that the indecent act was not committed by the victim, the person who committed an indecent act by the Defendant and the victim did not appear to have been committed by the victim’s health and the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.

2. The lower court determined: (a) Defendant, E, and F together with the chemical group outside of the hospital; (b) Party E went to the direction of the hospital through the first open door; (c) Party F went to the direction of the hospital; and (d) Party F went to the stairs on the left side through the door; (c) Defendant followed the direction of the F, followed the Defendant, going to the upper floor with the degree of F and 3-4 stairs depending on the left stairs; and (b) Party E going to the upper floor with the degree of F and 3-4 stairs.