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

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the victim's statement and the defendant's statement are reliable in either of the victim's statement and the defendant's statement. In light of the victim's physical strength or other circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement has credibility and that the defendant'

B. Furthermore, the Defendant sent G message or correspondence with the content that found his mistake, and recognized the Defendant’s mistake while making the victim’s sexual intercourse D with his sexual intercourse.

2. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below's judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

A. In a criminal trial, recognition of criminal facts 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 does not sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). 2) Article 299 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who has sexual intercourse or indecent act by taking advantage of a human’s mental or physical loss or resistance impossible condition, shall be punished as the same as the crime of rape or indecent act under Articles 297 and 298 of the same Act. This crime is due to mental or physical circumstances.