All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the defendant and the requester of the protective observation order are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal [In the judgment of the court below, the determination of the defendant and the claimant for the observation order against the defendant and the victim of the protection order (hereinafter "the defendant")] made a consistent statement as to the essential part of the damaged fact, although the victim's statement was reliable, the court below did not believe it and acquitted all of the charges against the defendants. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, and the punishment (the punishment amount of five million won) that the court below made against the defendant A on the premise that the above facts charged against the defendant A are not guilty is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the part of the Defendant case, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found it difficult to believe that the statement made by the victim’s investigative agency, the only direct evidence to prove each of the facts charged, which is the only direct evidence to prove the facts charged, was proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendants, as indicated in each of the facts charged, had sexual intercourse with the victim by force, as

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the charges, the lower court acquitted each of the charges.

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002, etc.). Examining the various circumstances presented by the court below in light of these legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is acceptable for the prosecutor to have the above determination by the court below, even if there is no such evidence.