The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim of the grounds for appeal on the ground that the victim has consistently stated the facts of damage from the investigative agency to the court below, but there are doubtful circumstances in the victim's statement, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. The lower court determined, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, found facts as indicated in its reasoning (Article 3 and 4), i.e., the following circumstances: (i) where the victim and the Defendant’s statement fully conflict with the existence of certain facts as in the instant case; (ii) where the two parties completely make it impossible to match their respective statements; and (iii) one of the two parties cannot be deemed to make a false statement; (iv) in this case, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s statement is particularly lacking credibility compared to the victim’s statement; (ii) the time when the victim’s statement arrived at the victim’s house on the day of the instant case; (iii) the point where the Defendant’s statement arrived at the victim’s house on the day of the instant case; (iv) the circumstance of specific damage situations, etc. do not go back to the Defendant’s meeting at night; (iii) there is no specific aspect to deem that the victim’s statement was made without direct experience; however, there is no possibility to admit credibility of the victim’s statement solely on the grounds that the victim’s statement was made.