The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles) lies in a relatively consistent statement as to the facts of basic damage despite the absence of any intellectual obstacle. However, this is due to the characteristics of victims with intellectual disability, investigators are merely engaged in an investigation in the form of a door-to-door response, considering the characteristics of victims with disabilities, and there is no inducing or suggesting specific contents of the victims' statements, and the result of the victim's statement analysis with the victim C is also consistent with the purport that the above victim's statements are credibility in the above victim's statements, and the result of the statement analysis with the victim's statements with E is also consistent with the facts charged, and it is also consistent with the purport that the above victim's statements are credibility in the above victim's statements. Considering the circumstances such as natural circumstance of the report of this case, victims and E, etc. and there is no motive to mislead the victims and the defendant, it can be acknowledged that the victim's statements were credibility as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the evidence of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and acquitted the defendant, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court: (a) in the case of a crime against the victim C, the victim C’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is a relatively clear and consistent statement about the indecent act committed by the said victim; (b) did not make any statement or explanation about the fact of sexual intercourse; and (c) did not answer the question about the closed-down type or inducement type of the questioner.