The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the contents of consistent victim’s statement, E’s statement, singing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-s-inging-s-inging-s-inging-s-inging-s-inging-s-inging-s-inging-

On the contrary, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the victim’s statement, the content of text messages sent and received by the Defendant and the victim immediately after the instant case, and the fact that the victim reported damage to the investigation agency immediately after the instant case, there is doubt as to whether the Defendant did not commit the instant crime.

It is not visible that the victim made a false statement against his memory.

B. However, in light of the overall circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below that " it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim was in the state of mental disorder at the time of the case and that the defendant had sexual intercourse with him by using it" is just, and the prosecutor'

In particular, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had a “suspect” for quasi-rape.

① After having arrived at the victim’s house, it appears that the victim would have been able to act relatively normally by appearance, such as fing the Defendant’s drinking water or dial-a-dial partnership. ② When considering the fact that the Defendant, in the sexual intercourse, she would have given her a fling relationship with the victim, she could not think that she would have been sexually in opposition to the victim’s will, ③ after having singing out, the circumstance that the Defendant, in the sexual intercourse map as seen earlier, had her franked the victim “a dial-a-dial partnership defect.”