The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal of this case, the form and content of the letter of this case, and the relationship between the victim and the addressee, the possibility of spreading the letter sent by the defendant to two specific recipients can be recognized, and thus, performance is recognized. However, the court below denied the possibility of spreading the letter and rendered a judgment of not guilty of the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s timely statement could have been transmitted to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, and that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, considering the following: (a) the other party to whom the Defendant sent a letter was the father of the victim’s male-gu and male-child movement; (b) the letter sent by the Defendant was not likely to open to other persons; and (c) the letter received by the addressee

In addition to the circumstances of the judgment below, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, i.e., the victim's interview: ① Ma, the father of the male-parent families of the victim, only her father, notified her son and her son, and notified her her her son and her son, and did not confirm her her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her the victim, and the victim her son her son her son her son her son her son her son her her son her son her he her her son her the victim,