A. The lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, found not guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) and dismissed the prosecution, and appealed only to the part not guilty.

Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below against which the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal is finalized, it is limited to the acquittal part among the judgment below.

B. The judgment of the court below which rejected statements made by the victim with credibility of the grounds for appeal, and acquitted all of the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) from among the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

2. Determination

A. On November 8, 2013, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the victim’s statement made by the investigative agency, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, is inconsistent with the facts charged, such as (a) the victim’s statement made by the police and the prosecution, (b) the victim, who was given a warning of the punishment for perjury, stated that “the Defendant was not infinite or infinite; and (c) the victim made a false statement made at the investigative agency” differently from the facts charged despite being given a warning of the punishment for perjury; (b) the victim called the Defendant at the prosecutor’s office after the prosecution of this case to the same effect as the statement made by the prosecutor before attending the court; (c) the victim called the prosecutor’s office to the same effect as the statement made by the investigative agency; (b) it again

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below's above determination is just and it is not sufficient to find the defendant guilty of this part of the charges only with the victim's statement by investigation agency.