The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of rape even if the victim's statement consistently states the fact of injury and the victim's statement is acknowledged as credibility because it does not conflict with the objective condition immediately after the crime of the victim.

B. Legal principles do not recognize the points of rape injury even if misunderstanding the legal principles

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the whole of the facts charged without determining whether the crime of injury was recognized is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the recognition of reduction.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor maintained the fact of the previous rape injury in the first instance trial as the primary charge, and applied legal provisions in preliminaryly add the name of the crime to “injury”, “Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act”, and “the facts charged in the part of the judgment which was used again” as “the facts constituting the crime in the part of the judgment which was used again,” and the subject of the judgment was added by this court upon permission.

As seen earlier, this Court rendered a not-guilty verdict of the primary facts charged and found a guilty guilty of the facts charged added in preliminary. Since the newly convicted part is in a relationship with the primary facts charged which the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict, the judgment of the court below eventually became unable to maintain any further.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's primary facts charged

A. A. On April 6, 2017, a victim C (n, 56 years of age) in the facts charged, around 22:27, 2017, went through a mixed drinking in the “E” restaurant located in Sincho-si D, Sincho-si, Sincho-si, and went through the Defendant’s driving and vision of his body, and the Defendant was able to place the victim with his body fighting.

The injured person is threatening to the defendant.