The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which rejected the victim's statement despite the consistency of the main contents of the damage of this case, and acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's statement.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is written in the indictment around 02:00 on June 4, 2012, the Defendant stated that the date and time of the instant crime was “02:00 on June 3, 2012.” However, both the Defendant, the victim, and D have dice on June 3, 2012 and that the instant case had occurred on the new wall following the said date. In particular, in light of the fact that the date and time of the instant crime were frightened on Sundays (as of June 3, 2012), the date and time of the instant crime appears to be “0:00 on June 4, 2012.”

In the house of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, E, D, victim F (n, 53 years of age) and bring alcohol, who are partners, entered a small room in the first place of the victim, enter the victim's mind to rape, and the victim's boomed down to the small room, and attempted to be out of the victim's inner part, while the victim boomed flag and flaged in the locking room, and attempted to rape after suppressing the victim's face by suppressing the victim's face with the floor of the flag by pushing the defendant's flab, but she attempted to rape after suppressing the victim's face. However, the victim's blag and the victim's flag enter the small room of D.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) there was a victim’s statement as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case and D’s statement to witness the situation immediately after the instant case; (b) in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court did not coincide with the victim’s statement and D’s statement concerning the situation that existed with the Defendant before the instant case occurred; and (c) there was a change in the victim’s statement and D’s respective statements concerning the damage situation at the time.