The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to rape on January 8, 2016, the lower court rendered a consistent statement as to the major part of the fact that the victim had inflicted injury, and consistent with objective circumstances, and found the Defendant guilty of this part sufficiently, but did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, four years of suspended sentence) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant alleged that he was guilty of facts, 1) The Defendant: (a) sent the victim who had finished a meeting on the night of January 8, 2016; and (b) sent the victim to the Moel in the north-gu E at the port of port, and (c) had a lusent defect.

A cleaning agent shall be off, as soon as possible.

Because of Native video, it is known that only in the place of detention is limited.

The workplace should be notified to the workplace, and we need to see.

C. The victim had sexual intercourse once with another victim, who had taken the victim’s sexual organ before, and threatened him/her to spread or know the victim’s sexual organ to the surrounding people, by spreading or threatening him/her to know it.

Accordingly, the defendant raped the victim by threatening the victim.

2) The evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged is only the victim’s statement. Taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the victim’s statement was proven to the extent that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the victim’s statement was raped as stated in the facts charged.

It is insufficient to view.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part is justifiable.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

(1) A victim has made two statements from the police concerning the fact of damage, and the gist thereof shall be as follows:

On December 17, 2015, the victim laid off a cell phone from the defendant, and then on December 18, 2015, the next day.