The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles), the statement of the victim and the details of the payment of electric charges of the C and B of Jeju City (hereinafter “C Housing”) at the scene of the crime, it is recognized that the defendant A committed rape with D in collaboration with D in the C Housing that the defendant resided at the time of September 2014 on September 23:00, and that the defendant B committed rape with D around 03:0 of the following day.

Therefore, even if each of the facts charged in this case is found guilty, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous determination of facts.

Judgment

The court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal. The court below held that, in light of various circumstances known by the victim and his male-child job offering H's statement in the court and investigation agency, investigation report and recording of the record of the records of investigation into H and D's telephone conversations, etc., Defendant A conspired with D in a house C, and Defendant B conspired with D, Defendant B took the new wall victim at one's own house and took rape. While the court below's evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below revealed that the date and time of the crime were consistent with September 2014, the victim's commencement of residing in the above house C is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant A resided in the above house around September 2014, the date and time of the crime stated in the facts charged in the instant case, including confirmation around November 2014. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant A resided in the above house C around September 2014 as the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the evidence of evidence in the facts charged as Defendant A and C around 14.