The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim has been raped twice and has committed three similar rapes, and has committed three-time indecent acts.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The facts constituting the constituent elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial of relevant legal principles are the prosecutor’s burden of proof, and the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge’s conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictoryly or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interest of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487 Decided April 28, 2011 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 201). In particular, the direct evidence consistent with the facts charged is consistently denied by the Defendant, and the victim’s statement is virtually flexible, and the remainder of the evidence is merely hearsay evidence based on the victim’s statement, etc., in order to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, the victim’s statement requires high probative value to the extent that there is little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. Determination of whether the probative value exists requires a high level of probative value. Determination of whether the victim has such probative value is reasonable, consistent, objective, as well as personal factors such as the victim’s sexual character (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 2012). However, when a court examines a sex offense case, the victim’s response in individual and specific cases is in accordance with the victim’s sex status or relationship with the perpetrator.