The defendant shall be innocent.

In light of the fact that the victim’s statement, consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, can be trusted, that the victim’s speech and behavior after the instant case is not unreasonable to reject the credibility of the statement, and that the tangible power at the time of the instant case, which led to the suppression of the victim’s resistance or making it considerably difficult to suppress or substantially impede the victim’s resistance, etc., the facts charged in the instant case is found guilty. In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charge

2. Judgment ex officio (Changes in indictment)

A. In the trial, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the following contents, and the court of the first instance permitted it.

1) The judgment of the court below 2nd 7~12 (Rape) portion of the defendant's second 7th 7th 7th 7th 12th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st

2) The part 14 to 17 of the judgment of the court below on the 2nd 14th 17th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e

B. The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained since the subject of the judgment of the court below was changed according to the amendment of the indictment as above. The judgment below is no longer consistent with the prosecutor's assertion, since the contents of the facts charged before and after the amendment are almost identical to those of the previous facts charged except where the circumstances at the time were specifically stated.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds of lack of evidence as to the following: (a) there was an intentional rape or similar rape on the part of the Defendant; and (b) the physical force of the Defendant’s exercise of the right to resist by the victim was insufficient to prove that the victim’s resistance was impossible or considerably difficult.

In light of the overall circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the original judgment and the trial court, the judgment of the original court is just, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. In particular, as indicated in the lower judgment, the victim’s actions immediately before and after the instant case were not easy to blick with the facts charged. ① The victim stated that “I was forced to do so by force. I do not talk with the victim. I do not talk about the victim’s figures. I do not talk. I do not talk about the victim’s figures.” ② He sent a text message to the effect that “I am flick, I am flick, I am flick, I am flick, I am flick, I am flick, and I am flick, and I am flick, I am am flick, I am flick, and I am am flick at the telephone immediately before and after the instant case’s interview with H, and it is difficult to see the victim’s so-called “I am flick,” and I am to see it as a bad thing in light of the following circumstances:

C) ① The victim stated to the effect that “after reporting damage to the police, I am scarbly scarbly and brought the Defendant’s mobile phone. I am am scarbly. I am am. I am. I am. I am am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am.)

D. The process and content of the second sexual contact are considerably different from the statement of the Defendant and the statement of the victim, and the prosecutor indicted this part on the basis of the statement of the victim for similar rape.

① Even according to the victim’s statement, the time interval between the first sexual relationship and the second sexual contact point was very shorter. ② The circumstance where there was a sudden change in the relationship or atmosphere of the Defendant and the victim cannot be found during the second sexual contact point. ③ As seen earlier, the victim’s claim after the second sexual contact cannot be found separately guilty in light of the content and circumstance of the victim’s claim after the second sexual contact.

E. ① Although the Defendant’s act cannot be determined by rape or similar rape, the victim who was unexpected up to the Defendant’s sexual contact with the Defendant could have ever been sexually frightened. As a result, the victim may have caused a sense of sexual humiliation. ② In particular, the victim who was aware of the Defendant could have been sexually imprisoned by the Defendant, who was approaching the Defendant, could have attempted to engage in a sexual intercourse after having accessed the victim as if he had rearcated, even though there was a woman who was the victim of the Defendant, and could have attempted to engage in a sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim could have been expressed as “the victim was indecent at the first call with H.” or “fishing.” In fact, the victim could have been tried to engage in physical contact with another woman at his house by any improper means, and even in that the Defendant had attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim, even though he had been sexually disturbed by the victim.

However, even if there is room for criticism against the defendant's behavior in terms of intention and ethics, it is difficult to readily conclude that the submitted evidence alone proves the facts charged of this case or that the defendant's act that is merely the degree of deception constitutes a crime under criminal law.

4. Conclusion

The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the pleading is made again as follows.

[Reasons for multi-use Judgment]

The facts charged of this case are as follows: 14-2 and 17-2 of the judgment of the court below, except for the accusation as described in paragraph (1) of Article 2.

As stated in paragraph (3) of the same Article, the facts charged in the instant case fall short of the proof of a crime. In this regard, the acquittal shall be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the summary of the verdict of innocence shall not be publicly announced pursuant to the proviso to Article 58 (2) of

Judges Choi Jong-hee

Judges Cho Young-young

(ii) one copy of evidence recording 218 pages

(iii) 2.3 pages, 5 pages of evidence records;

(iv) evidence-record 1 219 pages

(v) one copy of evidence recording 6 pages

6) One copy of evidence recording 25 pages

7) One copy of evidence recording 25 pages