Attorney Lee Gyeong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The victim made a consistent statement from an investigative agency to the lower court on the details and details of the damage. Until the victim was victimized by the quasi-rape of this case, the victim made a rush statement in a rush manner to the fact that there was a enemy who made physical contact with the Defendant, such as dancing with the Defendant, etc. A victim stated the fact that he was not favorable to himself. The victim stated the fact immediately after the victim was victimized by the quasi-rape, and the victim stated that he was unable to work any longer due to the injury to the quasi-rape of this case, and reported to the police on the day of the instant case. The victim reported to the police on the day of the instant case. The victim did not have made a monetary demand to the Defendant, and there is no motive or reason to dismiss the Defendant. In full view

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the victim’s statement is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged.

2. Determination

In light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact that it has the nature of a trial, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., even though the first instance court, which directly observed the appearance and attitude of the witness who is taking part in the witness examination procedure with respect to the witness supporting the facts charged, judged that the credibility of the witness's statement cannot be acknowledged, the appellate court should reverse it and take it as evidence of guilt if it is deemed that the appellate court is able to recognize the credibility of the witness's statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006).

Based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Defendant, on the basis of the evidence duly admitted and examined, committed quasi-rape of the victim during the instant case without reasonable doubt, based on the facts and circumstances set forth in Articles 4 through 11 of the lower judgment and the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone.

The judgment of the court below is just in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence, i.e., when the victim drinks alcohol at the pre-ception house with the defendant, and i.e., around April 2018, around 26:02:21, the immediately preceding 2018, when the victim gets on the vehicle of the defendant and gets on the vehicle of the defendant, she seems to have not been withdrawn only from alcohol (CCTV video (Evidence 2-1, 2-2, and page 259 of the trial record). The judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable in light of the following circumstances, including the fact that the victim gets on the pre-ception house with the defendant, and the conversation for the surrounding persons at the time when she was on the vehicle of the defendant, and there is no illegality

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Roster

Judges Song Jae-Gyeong