misunderstanding of facts: The court below committed a mistake that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts that the court below rejected statements made by the victim that correspond to rape among the facts charged in this case and acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged.

In the statement of grounds of appeal submitted within the legitimate period for submission of the grounds of appeal, the prosecutor states to the effect that “The original trial was erroneous in the determination of punishment due to erroneous determination of facts (Rape) and thus, it was ordered to file an appeal to correct the error.”

In light of such contents, in a case where a prosecutor filed an appeal, ex officio examination or ex officio adjudication unfavorable to the defendant is not permitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do8117, Jan. 31, 2008; 70Do2752, Mar. 23, 1971). In light of the following, even in a case where the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal did not change the prosecutor’s acquittal portion against the defendant disadvantageously against the defendant unlike the above contents, it is difficult to view the court below’s sentencing to the effect that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable because

(B) As seen earlier, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of rape among the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and examining all the sentencing conditions that can be known through the records, such as the circumstances, etc. that the lower court rendered, the sentence that the lower court found the Defendant guilty is reasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is difficult to accept).

A. The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not having reasonable doubt as to whether the facts charged are true, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty.

Even the interests of the defendant are the interests of the defendant.