The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) Defendant A was aware of the first victim’s chest and was frightened to the victim’s chest, and the victim’s resistance was committed to the extent of suppressing the victim’s resistance; (b) Defendant A’s above behavior could have lost the mind of the victim under drinking condition; and (c) the victim consented to sexual intercourse simultaneously with Defendant A and his profes at the second after the victim’s right and right to sexual intercourse with Defendant A and his profes.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see the victim's statement, credibility of the victim's statement, circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendants jointly committed rape.

2. There is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of documentary evidence in the course of the appellate trial’s trial, and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the determination of documentary evidence of the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the determination on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance deliberation shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court did not prove that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor based on the detailed circumstances in the part of “3. Determination” in the said judgment was insufficient or significantly difficult to resist the victim by exercising the force of force to the extent that the Defendants raped the victim by exercising the force to the extent that it would make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim.

In light of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the instant charges.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous in the examination of evidence or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is a new objective reason that might affect the formation of evidence in the trial process of one court.