The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the victim's specific and detailed statement of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even if the defendant was found to have sexual intercourse by exercising his/her force to suppress or make it considerably difficult to suppress the victim's resistance, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of rape, or acquitted the victim of the charges of this case.

2. Determination

A. On May 1, 2015, the Defendant found the victim “E” located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S. as a customer on May 1, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, i.e., that the victim F (the 25-year-old age), who is an employee of the Defendant, was able to take a bath, i.e., “to be kept off”, “to be kept off, straw,” and “the thickness for the string”. The Defendant was raped by putting the victim out of the victim’s clothes on every set, breaking the victim’s body, and inserting the victim’s resistance into the victim’s body, and inserting the victim’s sexual organ into force during the period

B. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the victim’s statement, although the victim clearly expressed his/her intent to refuse sexual intercourse, was sexual intercourse by exercising the force to suppress the victim’s resistance at the time or to make it considerably difficult to resist the victim’s resistance, is likely to recognize the reasonableness and credibility of the victim’s statement, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone sufficiently proven that the facts charged in the instant case were sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in the instant case, and the court rendered a verdict of innocence by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

① On the day of the instant case, the Defendant was provided with the service of harming the victim’s initial act of similarity in E “E” where the victim works, and the Defendant himself was fluoring the victim’s sexual flag and women’s sound with the victim’s sexual intercourse (the Defendant and the victim’s aforementioned act).