The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. It is difficult to view that the victim had sexual intercourse with the Defendant in light of the circumstance where the Defendant and the victim came to know of the gist of the grounds for appeal.

A victim's statement may be partially reversed or unclear in detail, but the overall contents are consistent with the facts and credibility.

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

2. Article 8(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse provides that “The Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (compacting with the disabled)” shall be applied to the name of the offense, and Article 8(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall be applied to the applicable provisions of the Act.”

An application for amendment to Bill of Indictment was filed to add the same contents as the statement in the paragraph, and this court has permitted it, and there was a change in the scope of the adjudication.

However, the prosecutor's argument of misconception of facts about the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so this paper will examine the following.

3. Judgment of misconception of facts as to the primary facts charged

A. The lower court determined that the statements made by the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant case are not reliable in light of the following circumstances, and that the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim and the victim through the records, etc. cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by force using superior status as an adult, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.

① In relation to the situation immediately before having sexual intercourse with the Defendant, the victim said that “the Defendant would be punished by the police.” However, the victim said that the Defendant was fine while refusing to do so.