The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is consistent with the victim's investigative agency and court's consistent statement is reliable, and the facts charged of this case are all acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment that it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement as it is and acquitted the facts charged of this case as follows.

With respect to the instant case, there is only a statement in D in this court as evidence consistent with the above facts charged. However, D’s above statement is consistent in light of the following circumstances that could have been known by the result of this court’s examination of evidence, namely, from the investigation agency to the investigation agency, the Defendant consistently stated that D was able to take advantage of her hand by consistently speaking and did not assault D, and the Defendant consistently stated that E was in the sick room but was in the sick room, and the foreign patient in the name and in the name of the sick room at the time and the nurse in the sick room at the time were in dispute between E and the Defendant. In this circumstance, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant used to assault D, even though it is difficult to find that there was a witness’s statement to support D’s statement, it is difficult to believe that there was no evidence to acknowledge it differently in light of the situation of the Defendant before and after the assault by the Defendant, and that the statement of D suffered by the assault by the Defendant was somewhat unclear.

B. In a criminal trial for a trial for a trial of a political party, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent of having the aforementioned conviction, the prosecutor’s proof may not reach such a level.