The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the statement by the victim of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles), the defendant is acknowledged to have abused the victim's free will and sexual intercourse with the victim by force at the time of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the evidence relationship and the constituent elements of crime, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was as follows: (a) on September 27, 2016, the Defendant: (b) on the apartment located in Seogu Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, in order to take the victim D (at the time, 15 years old) who was present in the Defendant’s living-day strike into the house; and (c) on the 4 to 5th floor of the said apartment building.

Since then, the defendant had the victim take the arms of the victim, put his hand into the part of the victim's clothes, put his fingers into the part of the victim's clothes, and let the victim quickly sworn his head into the victim's sexual organ by pushing the victim's head into the part of the victim's sexual organ.

Then, the Defendant inserted the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the victim, even though the victim was tightly and resisted by two descendants.

Accordingly, the defendant has sexual intercourse with a child or juvenile by force.

As to the prosecutor’s assertion on the judgment of the court below, the defendant argued to the effect that he was sexual intercourse with the victim under the agreement at the time and place stated in the facts charged in this case, and the court below, considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement on the facts charged in this case was in trust. Accordingly, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by force.