The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) E’s statement is high in value of evidence, and the victim’s statement, etc. is admissible in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act because his/her whereabouts are unknown. In full view of such evidence, the fact that the defendant has abused the victim can be acknowledged.

2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged, on the grounds that it is difficult to view the witness E’s suspect interrogation protocol and written statement of writing by witness E, and the facts charged that the Defendant “the victim’s objection was proved by his head,” on the sole basis of the court below’s written statement.

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records reveals all the circumstances as stated by the court below, and the statements and the statement of statement of the victim prepared by the police that the victim B submitted to the police, which the court below adopted as a witness, was summoned by the court below, but it was impossible to confirm the location of the victim although the summons was not served on the board of directors due to the request for detection of location, and it was not possible to confirm the location of the victim's cell phone, and the victim could not use the cell phone in the company without communication subscription details, and the contact information could not be confirmed. Thus, this constitutes "when it is impossible to make a statement on the court date due to the unknown location" under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in light of the fact that the victim's statement made at the police station immediately after the time of this case and the contact with each other, it is difficult to view that the victim's statement made at the police station immediately after this case was beyond reasonable doubt, and it cannot be deemed as evidence to have reached the extent that it did not go through confirmation and verification through the court.

Therefore, the court below's charges are based on its stated reasoning.