2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

A. On December 27, 2011, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office to the effect that “the Plaintiff was raped after the Defendant’s face and head was humped with the finger floor and drinking at the Plaintiff’s residence on December 9, 2011, and the Defendant’s rank and head was humped with the Defendant’s rank and suppression of the Defendant’s resistance.”

B. The Plaintiff asserted that he was sexual intercourse under the agreement and did not rape the Defendant, but was detained on August 10, 2012 due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape) and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years at the court of first instance (Seoul Southern District Court 2012 high-scale 547) on January 18, 2013.

C. In a subsequent appellate trial proceeding with the Plaintiff’s appeal, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2013No499) on June 28, 2013, where there exist various circumstances to suspect the authenticity of the content of the victim’s statement and reject the facts charged, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that the facts charged against the Plaintiff are unlikely to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged against the Plaintiff. As the prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed on November 14, 2013 (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8703), the judgment of innocence against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive.

Meanwhile, the Defendant appeared as a witness in the above first instance trial and the second instance trial against the Plaintiff, and testified to the effect that “the Plaintiff was forced to have sexual intercourse with drinking, saliv, hair, and worship from the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 8 and 9

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had not raped the defendant, but reported false facts to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office for the purpose of having the plaintiff punished as a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and made it false in the plaintiff's criminal trial.