The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement, which corresponds to the facts charged in the indictment, and acquitted the defendant, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles

2. Determination

A. The facts constituting the elements of the offense charged in a criminal trial should be based on the strict evidence with the probative value that leads to the prosecutor’s burden of proof, whether it is subjective or objective, and the recognition of the facts constituting the offense should be based on the strict evidence with the probative value that leads to the judge to have no reasonable doubt.

Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s evidence does not sufficiently reach the extent of inducing the above conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or unreasonable, and there is doubt of guilt, it shall be determined in the interest of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 201). Moreover, in a case where direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged is proved by the victim’s statement, and the remainder of evidence is merely a professional evidence based on the victim’s statement, etc., if the victim’s statement is insufficient to find guilty of the facts charged, the court below requires a high probative value that is so high that there is little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement, and when determining whether the injured party has such probative value, the court below should comprehensively consider not only the rationality, consistency and objective reasonableness of the statement itself, but also personal elements such as the victim’s sexual character, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 2012).

It is difficult to see this, and even if we look at the statements of D and E, the facts charged.