Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty on the grounds of mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the above facts charged on the ground that the facts found in detail based on the evidence adopted and examined by the prosecutor, and that the facts charged in this case cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and that the judgment of the court below is just in comparison with the evidence.

B. In addition, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was in the position of guardian to protect and supervise the victim, and that the defendant has sexual intercourse with, or committed an indecent act against, the victim who is a ward through deceptive scheme or by force. Thus, the court below's finding the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just and there is no error of law

① The prosecutor stated in the indictment that the victim had sexual intercourse with the victim (the age of 15 at the time) in the room of the victim around March to April, 1994, when the defendant was well aware of the mental and physical conditions, as one of the major circumstances regarding the fact that the victim had continuously exercised the victim’s deceptive scheme or force against the defendant.

With regard to the time and situation of the first sex relationship between the defendant and the victim, the victim shall be the defendant and the defendant at the floor of the K apartment around spring 1994, unlike the above mentioned in the indictment.