The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Although the alleged defendant was found to have stolen the victim's goods, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and found the victim to have suffered bodily injury in the course of sexual intercourse, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In a case where there are no objective grounds to affect the formation of evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and there are no reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of evidence of the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc., determination on the finding of facts in the first instance should not be allowed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court acquitted the Defendant of each of the charges on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor based on the detailed circumstances in the “part of innocence” in the judgment, based on the following circumstances, cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant brought back back a white factoring of the victim or that the injury suffered by the victim was caused by quasi-rape.

In this part of the judgment of the court below, there is no reasonable reason to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process of a court.

The judgment of the court below on this part is just and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

We do not accept the prosecutor's assertion.

2. In comparison with the judgment of the court below on the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the court below's sentencing discretion is reasonable.