The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the premise that it is difficult to deem that the victim's resistance was impossible or that violence or intimidation to the extent that it would make it considerably difficult at the time of this case was initiated, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act was a series of processes to establish a sexual relationship with the victim, i.e., ① the relationship between the victim and the victim, ② the circumstance in which the Defendant was exposed to the victim’s house, ③ the circumstance in which the Defendant first committed sexual intercourse with the victim, and attempted to commit sexual intercourse with the victim; ④ the Defendant’s act of assault and intimidation among the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged is identical to the part in which the Defendant had a desire to commit the crime of rape, and her fingerd with the victim’s chest, and went against the victim’s will. However, considering that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act was committed after the victim’s appearance in light of the victim’s attitude, it is difficult to deem that he had expressed his intent to resist because of the above act, etc. ⑤ The Defendant did not have been aware of the victim’s explicit intent to resist or to avoid sexual intercourse with the victim’s own will.