The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the victim has consistently stated the details and details of the damage from the investigative agency to the original trial.

Until the victim was injured by the quasi-rape of this case, the victim made a rush statement in a rush manner that is not favorable to himself/herself, where he/she had made physical contact, such as dancing with the Defendant.

The victim stated the fact of damage to the victim immediately after the victim suffered quasi-rape, and stated that the victim could no longer work due to the damage from the quasi-rape of this case at the main point that he worked, and reported it to the police on the day of this case.

No victim has made a monetary demand to the defendant, and there is no motive or reason to arrest the defendant.

In full view of these points, there is sufficient credibility in the victim's statement to the effect that the defendant was subject to quasi-rape.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the victim’s statement is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged.

Judgment

In light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial but also has the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the first instance court, which directly observed the appearance and attitude of the witness who is taking part in the witness examination procedure with respect to the witness supporting the facts charged, judged that the credibility of the witness's statement cannot be acknowledged, the appellate court's rejection of the first instance court's judgment against the credibility of the witness's statement should be deemed to be a case where the first instance court, which rejected the credibility of the witness's statement, appears to be sufficient and understandable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The lower court is legitimate.