The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the facts delineated below, the victim's statement seems to be relatively consistent and reliable in light of the fact that rape was acquitted.

Although the lower court pointed out that the Defendant was unable to specifically explain the process and method of rape, and the circumstances immediately after rape, it seems that the victim was a patient with a mental or visual disability who was diagnosed by a third-class disabled person, and the victim suffered from sexual assault in the past due to the shock when rape was committed.

Nevertheless, the core contents of rape have been consistently stated, and the results of the autopsy’s statement analysis also evaluated to the effect that “the victim’s statement is consistent and credibility.”

In addition, the court below pointed out that the victim was unable to hear from the outside the voice of the victim's resistance against the defendant. However, in light of the fact that the victim gave up resistance and made a statement that the victim gave up the resistance by leaving the defendant's door and body attack in a situation where the body was controlled by the defendant, the court below cannot reject the credibility solely on the fact that the victim did not actively see the intention of resistance.

원심은 피해자가 응급키트 검사에 응하지 않은 점, 피해자의 음부를 닦은 수건에서 피고인의 DNA가 발견되지 않은 점 등을 무죄의 근거로 설시했으나, ① 당시 피해자는 술을 마셨고, 과거 성폭행의 트라우마가 있었으며, 정신장애가 있어 흥분, 격앙되어 있는 상태였기 때문에 응급키트 검사에 응하지 않았던 것이고, ② 피고인이 사정을 하였고 이에 찝찝하여 화장실에서 성기를 씻었다는 피해자의 진술을 통해 피고인이 실제로 사정을 한 사실을 추단할 수 있다.

In addition, “I” and “I” in the Defendant’s statement are used before the victim arrives at the site and are used in “victims and H.