The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, on January 1, 2016, sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant entered the “user” located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, to commit rape.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor and three years of suspended sentence) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On January 2016, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant had the intent to rape the victim E (the age of 61) in the “user” located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, and went to the said user by pretending the customer; (b) the victim could not receive the customer; (c) the victim expressed that he was unable to receive the customer, and (d) the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to see that he was aware of the tension; (d) the victim was able to take the victim’s timber and enter the victim’s inside of the user, and (e) reported that the Defendant had another customer inside the said user, and attempted to commit this act.

2) The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged and the statements in the court below are made to the victim's investigative agency.

In other words, there are circumstances under which the offender who suffered the same damage as the facts charged is consistently stated in the investigation agency and the court of the court below after the victim suffered the same damage as the facts charged.

B) On the other hand, in order to enhance the credibility of the victim's statement in the criminal identification procedure, the witness's statement or description as to the suspect's appearance, etc. should be recorded in detail in advance, and the suspect, including the suspect, should be identified at the same time by facing the witness, and the suspect, witness, and comparable person should not be contacted in advance, and the examination process and result should be conducted so that the value of evidence can be assessed ex post facto.