The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) ① On November 2, 2017, the defendant parked his vehicle on the 23:55:25 on November 2, 2017, and lent his phone to the victim, and returned to the vehicle with the victim on November 3, 2017, while driving the vehicle at around 00:01:06 on November 3, 2017. The defendant stated that the vehicle was just driven by the vehicle, and stated that the vehicle was just driven by the vehicle at the time, and that the vehicle was just driven by the vehicle, and that the vehicle was driven by 41 seconds, as the defendant stated by the defendant, the defendant was presumed to have driven the vehicle into his own vehicle along with the victim, and the victim was presumed to have been operating the vehicle at the time of the vehicle immediately after the operation of the vehicle.

Before the rash kissk before the kisk kisk, the Defendant stated that “after the kisk kisk, kisk kisk kissk,” and the Defendant 1 minute after the Defendant kisk kisk for about one minute, the Defendant stated that “Isk kisk, white kisk, white kisk, white white kisk, white kisk, white kisk,” and then the Defendant kisk kisk for a new sexual intercourse with the victim, ② the Defendant divided sufficient dialogue with the victim, and reached a sexual intercourse with the victim. However, even if the Defendant kisk kisksksk and kisk kisksksk kisksk until the new kisksk kisksk kisksk kisksk kisksk, the Defendant and the victim did not have any way to know that the Defendant and the victim did not have any way.”