The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the misunderstanding of legal principles and the misunderstanding of facts) is reliable in the statement of the victim that the defendant was raped by the defendant. According to this, the fact that the defendant raped the victim three times as stated in the facts charged is recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the victim’s statement and acquitted the Defendant, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assault and intimidation in the crime of rape, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Additional prosecutor subject to a trial following the amendment to the indictment shall be the primary charge of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was acquitted by the court below, and add the facts charged as stated in the "Judgment on the Preliminary Facts added at the trial of April 2 below as the primary charge (the factual relationship is identical to the primary charge, but the "the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim," and the "the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim on three occasions" in the primary charge, and "the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim who is a child or juvenile on three occasions" was changed to "the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim who is a child or juvenile by force over three times)", "Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse" in the name of the crime, and the applicable provisions of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse added "Article 7 (5) and (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse", and this court permitted the amendment of the indictment.

The grounds of appeal concerning the primary facts charged by the prosecutor and the ancillary facts added in the trial are examined in order.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Criminal Appeal Court has the character as an ex post facto trial and that the Criminal Procedure Act has the spirit of substantial direct examination as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence.