In light of the fact that the complainant consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that the complainant was deprived of the stairs of the defendant, and that there is a little difference between the complainant's statement and the complainant's statement is because the complainant went out from the stairs to the court of the court below, it does not constitute a reason to reject the credibility of the complainant's statement, and that E consistently stated to the purport that the complainant's body was faced with with the complainant and the defendant's body, except for some detailed matters from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. The place where the complainant was in existence at the time of the instant case is a double-type flight, the location where the complainant was in existence is sufficient by the complainant, and there is very low possibility that the complainant fell from the stairs, and the defendant did not go against it" even though the complainant made several statements to the effect that "this case is murder. It is necessary to file a criminal complaint against the defendant," it can be found guilty of the facts charged of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on different premise, and the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts.

Judgment

The court below, under the title "2. Judgment of the court below", states that the statement in the investigation agency and the court of the court of the court below concerning the defendant's attitude at the time of the defendant's smuggling and the complainant's statement in the court of the court of the court below is inconsistent. The medical records prepared by the medical staff who treated the complainant on the day of the instant case, stated that "if the complainant went to an emergency room immediately after the instant case, she would fall against the medical staff that "if you get out of the stairs 20 minutes prior to 20 minutes prior to the internal equipments, she would fall against the principle of vadadada." E stated that the defendant's hand does not interfere with the complainant's statement in the court of the court of the court below, and that E stated that it does not interfere with the complainant.