The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to CCTV images of the prosecutor's grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts), it is sufficiently recognized that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act by the defendant in light of the following: (a) the person who used the same room as the one cited by the defendant was exposed to the defendant's residence; (b) the head was shown to the security guard working in the defendant's residence; and (c) the head was identified as the defendant; and (d) the victim was designated as the criminal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded as the criminal who committed an indecent act against the victim, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition to the above circumstances established by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, ① the CCTV images taken by the victim with the appearance of the defendant at an investigative agency, and the actual objects of the defendant being investigated, which were the same as the defendant was a criminal.

Although all these statements have been made at the time when several months have elapsed after the crime was committed, making a witness's statement in the criminal identification procedure to be observed by himself/herself or by presenting only one photograph of the suspect to the witness in the criminal identification procedure due to the limit and accuracy of people's memory, and the possibility that the suspect or his/her photograph may give him/her awareness of the suspect being suspected of being a criminal under the specific circumstances, the witness's statement in the criminal identification procedure by such method shall be suspected of having been committed in addition to the victim's statement.