beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case in light of the following: (a) the defendant's intention to commit an innocent crime is consistent in light of the consistent statement and the specific circumstances before and after the damage occurred; and (b) the defendant's statement is insufficient in light of the specific circumstances before and after the damage occurred.
2. Determination
A. On June 28, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Seoul Yangcheon Police Station stating that “E, F, and G (hereinafter referred to as “E in the case of the joint name of three names”) combined with “E”, “E”, and “E”, etc. on June 10, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Gel located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the following grounds: (a) on June 10, 2013, i.e., the victim was raped by taking advantage of the state of her having lost the mind of undertakeing alcohol and having failed to resist.”
However, the fact was that the defendant, while drinking alcohol together with E, was in a state that the defendant was in a state of not having a large degree to lose the spirit of mind, and was coming to the above her motherel and had sexual intercourse with E, etc. under the agreement, and the defendant did not have been raped by three persons, such as E, in a state where the defendant was unable to resist because he was in the influence of alcohol.
Nevertheless, the Defendant submitted the above false complaint and rejected E, etc.
B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination of not guilty of the facts charged at the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, is acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor. A, E and G entered the telecom, and after F and G entered the telecom, E and G obtained the victim’s consent and collectively sexual intercourse during the process of their sexual intercourse with the Defendant, but E et al. stated that “E et al. did not have a driver’s license with the Defendant even though they got into the telecom.”