The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected the victim's statement of the summary of the grounds for appeal despite its credibility, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. As between October 13, 2012 and November 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) committed rape on six occasions, as indicated in the list of offenses in the attached Table, the victim E, who is the first-class disabled person with intellectual retardation disability living in a adjacent building (n, 16 years of age) in his/her own residence; and (b) committed rape on six occasions.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant charges on the grounds that it was difficult to acknowledge the credibility of the victim’s statement due to the lack of reasonable doubt, on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the victim’s statement is inconsistent with various objective circumstances; (b) the Defendant’s crime was committed on October 13, 2012 and November 3, 2012 among the instant facts charged; (c) the Defendant appears to be practically impossible to commit a crime; and (d) the victim was forced to enter the scene of sexual assault at the late night; and (e) the first statement that the victim was sexually abused from the Defendant; and (e) the victim’s statement was likely to have been made; and (e) the victim’s statement cannot be deemed as evidence of guilt because it was difficult to recognize the credibility of the victim’s statement; and (e) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone

(1) Determination of credibility of the victim’s statement (A) The victim’s statement is inconsistent with various objective circumstances as follows.

(1) Although the victim stated at the police that he was found to have been left behind the sublime of the defendant, both sides of the defendant were not found.

(Evidence Records 110 pages, 225 pages). (2) The victim inserted "the defendant's sexual flag into the part of the victim's sexual flag on November 17, 2012, but the victim was defective, and the defendant again inserted into the part of the victim's sexual flag into the part of the victim's sexual flag.