The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) each statement of the victim H prepared by the investigative agency is admissible in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act; according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant raped the victim H who is the mother and committed indecent act by force, the lower court acquitted all of the charges charged.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The court below dismissed the public prosecution against each of the charges in this case, and acquitted all of the charges of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape in Relatives) and violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by force in relation to relatives).

As seen earlier, the prosecutor argued misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles only with respect to the portion of innocence as seen earlier, and thus, the dismissal of the above public prosecution became final and conclusive as it is, and excluded from the scope of judgment

3. The lower court determined that the admissibility of each statement of the victim H and B submitted by a prosecutor as the core evidence proving each of the facts charged regarding the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (indecent act by force in relation to relatives), and that the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes rape of the victim H who is the mother of the defendant.

Considering that it is difficult to view that there was no reasonable doubt that the commission of indecent act by compulsion or indecent act was proven, all of the charges charged were acquitted.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. Each protocol of statement prepared by the investigative agency with respect to the victim H and B is prepared by a judicial police officer with respect to the admissibility of evidence of each protocol of statement prepared by the victim H and B (three times) and the prosecutor’s protocol of statement.