The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the statement in the victim's investigative agency as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was a neighbor living on the same apartment floor as the victim with mental disorder 2 years old (inn, 45 years old) with a view to having raped the victim by taking advantage of a friendly relationship with the victim.

Around 20:00 on October 7, 2012, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 301 Dong 1412, had the victim know at the victim’s house, and had the victim know at the victim’s house, had the victim talked with the victim over the victim’s ship, forced the victim’s resistance on the part of the victim, and raped the victim by sexual intercourse once.

On October 8, 2012, between 19:00 to 20:00 on October 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) told the victim refusing to engage in sexual intercourse at the Defendant’s home as stated in paragraph (1) that “I wish to do so;” and (b) led the victim to sexual intercourse once after suppressing the victim’s resistance.

On October 9, 2012, around 20:30 on October 20, 2012, the Defendant, at the victim’s house located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 301 Dong 1407, followed by sexual intercourse one time after suppressing the victim’s resistance against the victim, stating that it is necessary to pregnant, and that it would be necessary for the victim to respond to sexual intercourse.

On October 10, 2012, between 11:00 to 12:00 on October 10, 2012, the Defendant found the victim’s house as stated in paragraph (3) that he would give a real contact to the toilet screen, and demanded the victim to engage in sexual intercourse, but the victim threatened the victim with his resistance by threatening the victim to answer his refusal.

Around 20:00 on October 10, 2012, the Defendant sought a sexual relationship between the victim and the victim, and requested the victim to have a sexual intercourse. However, the Defendant’s resistance is against the victim by threatening the victim to have his or her objection against the rejection.