The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim made a concrete statement about the method of assault and the situation after the victim's statement, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, such as rejecting the victim's statement, etc.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

In addition, the subject of such strict certification includes all specific criminal facts as stated in the indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 201). In addition, in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness in the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in light of the records and the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court, the first instance court’s maintenance of the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance is clearly unfair, except in exceptional cases where the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance is clearly different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 206).