The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal of this case is found guilty, the court below found the defendant not guilty by violating the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. On March 24, 2013, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant drinking alcohol at the “D” main point located in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along with the victim E (n, 25 years of age); (b) the victim was unable to properly hold the body by drinking alcohol; (c) the victim was deprived of the victim’s body; (d) the victim was frighted into the “Gel” located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and (e) the Defendant f was able to rape the victim; and (e) was sexual intercourse with the victim by hand with the victim’s load.

Accordingly, the defendant raped the victim by taking advantage of the victim's failure to resist.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) it is difficult to believe that the part of the victim’s statement that the victim’s victim’s speech was not memory from the DNA point on the day of the instant case to the point of work in Gelher; and (b) other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was not sufficient to prove that the victim was unable to resist or resist at the time of the instant case; and (c) the Defendant was aware of the victim’s condition and had the victim’s intent to

C. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court according to the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court’s evidence examination