The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. E’s statements are consistent with the summary of the grounds for appeal and are difficult to believe that E’s statements do not have any motive to mislead the Defendant;

In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the lower court’s determination that E’s statement is not reliable and otherwise there is no evidence to prove the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

shall not be determined.

A. The Defendant consistently denies the instant facts charged from an investigative agency to the court of the competent trial.

B. Although there is a statement E as core evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, it is difficult to use the statement as evidence for the following reasons.

1) As the lower court properly states, it is difficult to easily understand the part of the statement that the Defendant, a taxi engineer, requested E to s to sing or to leave the taxi seat in light of the ordinary rule of experience.

2) The essential parts of the E’s statements are not consistent or are not consistent with facts as follows.

① As stated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the judgment of the original court, E reverses his/her statement on the developments leading up to the taxi boarding, and is also inconsistent with the Defendant’s physical characteristics (satisfsssat) stated by E.

② At the court of original instance, E stated in the court of original instance that “The Defendant had sing on the back seat of a taxi and then moved to the front seat and sing on a cell phone.”

In this regard, E reversed the statement in the court of the first instance and did not sing at all at the back of the taxi.