"The defendant was sentenced to the suspension of indictment for larceny at the Hongsung Branch Office of Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office on August 14, 1982 and was engaged in agriculture;

1. At around 22:00 on January 24, 198, the victim non-indicted 1, who was aware of the family at the victim non-indicted 1's home located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, in order to rape the female, who, alone, has induced the female in the above house to be her inside and in his house, and does not her inside visit as she does not fit her conditions, she she she is dead and she was prepared to her life at the defendant's home she was she, and she was prepared to her life at the defendant's home she was she, and she was she out of the defendant's house she was she was she, and she was she out of the defendant's house she was she, and she was she out of his/her house her house her house she was she, and she was she out of his/her house her house her house she was she, and she was she out of his/ her house her house she.

2. At around 24:00 on the same day, Nonindicted Party 1, standing in the above place, threatened another person with the fact of rape, she will flick the blicker’s house. They are blickly flickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly, glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly glickly, and glickly glickly glick the Defendant’s glick with the Defendant’s sound glick by inserting it into the part of the woman.”

However, even though the defendant's prosecution from the prosecutor's office to the court, it was established in two times at the above date and time, it was done under the agreement of the two persons, and there was no fact of rape by assaulting and threatening Non-Indicted 1, and therefore, the evidence submitted as evidence of guilt is examined in order of the evidence submitted as evidence of guilt;

1. Each protocol of suspect interrogation prepared by a judicial police officer regarding the defendant cannot be admitted as evidence because the defendant does not recognize his or her discretion and content, and the statement of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor and the statement made by the defendant in the court of the defendant are denied the facts charged as seen above. Thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence. However, although the defendant requested the non-indicted 1 to have sexual intercourse but failed to obtain his or her first consent, the statement that the defendant appeared to have sexual intercourse with the defendant, while failing to obtain his or her consent, and the defect that Non-indicted 1 tried to put him or her into his or her custody, it cannot be viewed as a threat to the extent that the defendant's behavior was committed to induce the co-ordination of the non-indicted 1 and the victim's resistance is threatened.

2. Each protocol of statement and inspection protocol of Nonindicted 2, 3, and 4 regarding the preparation of handling affairs by judicial police officers are not directly related to the facts charged in the instant case or are merely a specialized statement, and it cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no proof to establish the authenticity. Nonindicted 5’s statement in the police and the court is not directly related to the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, it is insufficient to provide evidence to support the facts charged in the instant case.

3. According to each statement of Nonindicted 6’s written statement in the course of handling the affairs of the judicial police officer, the following day of the instant case stated that the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) obstructed the visit from Nonindicted 1; (c) threatened the Defendant with his intention to die without hearing the horses; and (d) caused the Defendant’s voice without having to force his sexual intercourse; and (c) considered Nonindicted 1’s sexual intercourse at night on the day when the instant case occurred; (d) on the other hand, Nonindicted 6 was raped from Nonindicted 1 in the court; (c) however, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 6’s statement was stated that there was no possibility of having any particular wife, it cannot be admitted as evidence because it is difficult to believe Nonindicted 6’s statement at the police station.

4. As such, there is no evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this case, only the police of the victim non-indicted 1, the prosecution, and the court. Thus, the summary of the statement corresponds to the facts charged in this case.

However, first, in the first statement of the police, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement that he was unable to use his clothes for assault, intimidation, and was off his own clothes before the instant case, and that he was off his clothes at the police station, and that he was off his clothes by force, and in the court, he reversed the above statement that he had sexual intercourse with the Defendant on November 1, 1987, and the police and the prosecution made a statement that he was too unsatisfy, and that he was too unsatisfy, the police and the prosecution made a statement that he was unsatisfy, and that he did not have any satisfy, and it was not consistent with the statement concerning important matters related to the instant crime, such as the statement that he was not even

Second, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement is suspected of being credibility of Nonindicted Party 1’s statement because it stated in the prosecutor’s office and court that Nonindicted Party 6 was not a witness at the scene where the Defendant was a witness at the scene where the Defendant was a female, but Nonindicted Party 6 made a statement to the effect that there was no witness at such scene;

Third, Non-Indicted 1 voluntarily states that even though Non-Indicted 6 couple return to the outside of Non-Indicted 1 and that Non-Indicted 1 did not inform the defendant of the fact of crime or request for assistance when he was raped after he was first raped with the defendant, Non-Indicted 1 went to the outside of Non-Indicted 6 couple, and he did not request for assistance, which is acceptable in light of the empirical rule;

Fourth, according to the statement of Non-Indicted 1, the defendant's non-indicted 6 couple was aware that the defendant's non-indicted 6 couple's return to the outside and next side was able to commit the crime of rape, and Non-Indicted 1 was raped in the second place, and was raped in the inside of his own house, and the defendant was sleeped without any help from the non-indicted 6 couple even after the non-indicted 6 couple. Thus, this cannot be said to be a statement that is remarkably acceptable in light of the empirical rule; and

Fifth, according to the police statements of the defendant and the non-indicted 1 at the prosecution and the court, the statements made by the police and the non-indicted 5 and the non-indicted 6 at the court, and the statements made by the non-indicted 2 at the non-indicted 1, the defendant and the non-indicted 1 came to know from the end of September 1987 that the defendant came to know from the end of the non-indicted 1's house and frequently play in the non-indicted 1's house, and exchange tapes, books, daily gifts, etc. with one another, and exchange obscene videos with one another at the house of the non-indicted 1's house to the extent that only she can be seen from the non-indicted 1's house to the non-indicted 6's day, it is difficult to find that the defendant tried to marry with the non-indicted 1's mother in view of the above circumstances that most of the two persons were married to the non-indicted 1's husband, and that the defendant did not have any relation with the non-indicted 6.

Thus, in light of the above various points, the victim non-indicted 1's statement is doubtful, not evidence of the facts charged in this case, and there is no other evidence to support the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a time without proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Park Jae-dae (Presiding Judge)