The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) states a somewhat inconsistent statement about the medium in which the defendant recorded the scene of indecent act (whether it is cellular phone or portable tape) but it is confirmed that the victim made a conversation in the office of a dispute settlement center on July 16, 2012. If the defendant and the victim made a conversation in the office of a dispute settlement center, it cannot be deemed that the date of actual creation of the recording file is not the same as the new wall time, and it cannot be deemed that the date of actual creation of the recording file is 02:36:42 on July 16, 2012. On February 2, 2014, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case, contrary to the fact that the date and time of the crime of policeman on July 16, 2012, among the crimes of policeman on February 3, 2014, it cannot be deemed that the victim's statement was inadmissible as evidence.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) the victim’s statement as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case was the only evidence; (b) recorded a conversation between the Defendant and the Defendant at the time following the day and time indicated in the facts charged; (c) the victim stated that the part related to paragraph (1) of the facts charged was deleted by the operation of equipment and submitted a tape recorder to an investigative agency in order to support the above statement; and (d) the said tape recorder had a recording file consistent with the conversation between the Defendant and the victim as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged; (c) the date of creation of the said recording file was set on July 16, 2012, rather than the day and time indicated in the facts charged; and (d) the tape recorder did not have only the said recording file but also had multiple recording files before and after the said day.