The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. In light of the victim’s statement of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the summary of the facts charged is as follows.

B. The lower court rejected the credibility of the victim's statement on the ground that the victim's statement is the only evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, and that the victim's statement is not consistent, and that there is a high possibility that the victim's statement is considerably exaggerated in light of the victim's attitude at the time of testimony in court, etc., and that the victim's explanation on the development process in the instant case

On the other hand, considering the fact that D's statement consistent with D's change that the victim spits flooded against the victim or there is no deficit in the victim's transfer is the same as D's death with the defendant, it is considered that D's statement about the progress of the case is more specific and relatively consistent, as well as more persuasively persuasively persuasive as to the progress of the case.

Accordingly, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of the facts charged of this case.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant may fully recognize the victim’s body as stated in the facts charged of this case, and fully recognize the fact that the Defendant spits, etc., the victim’s body as indicated in the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, the lower court, which made a different conclusion, has erred by mistake of facts, such as the prosecutor’s assertion.

1. It is to some extent that it is difficult for the victim to believe the whole statement of the victim as it is, such as exaggeration of the act of the defendant and D or reduction of his act, but the investigative agency and the court of original instance.