The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Although the victim’s statement to the effect that he/she was raped by the Defendant from the summary of the grounds for appeal is reliable, and in full view of the Defendant’s statement to the effect that he/she acknowledged the sexual intercourse against the victim’s will and circumstances after sexual intercourse, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on rape and not guilty of the facts charged.

2. Progress of litigation;

A. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) on the ground that it is difficult to view that the victim's statement alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant rapes the victim due to the assault that it is difficult to resist as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The prosecutor appealed on the ground of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and filed an application for modification of indictment to add the charges and applicable provisions of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (comprehion, etc.) to the ancillary charges and applicable provisions of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the trial prior to remand was permitted.

C. The judgment of the court below before remanding the case is just and acceptable, and the court below dismissed the prosecutor's appeal after determining that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant exercised his power against the victim in the preliminary facts.

In this regard, the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the party prior to the remand on the ground that it violated the rules of evidence and the rule of experience.