The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Even if the Defendant’s fingerprints was taken at the scene of the crime of this case, and the fingerprint was not identified at the place of the crime of this case where the Defendant’s fingerprint was taken, and the fingerprint was not identified at the place of the crime of this case, it is difficult to say that the Defendant’s fingerprint was located at a different place, even when examining the place of the crime of this case, the Defendant’s residence and place of work at the time of the crime of this case, etc.

The victim's appearance, the age, height, weight, etc. of the criminal stated immediately after the crime of this case is insufficient.

As a result of the analysis of the Defendant’s psychological physiological test, the Defendant respondeded to the question “Isday, D’s glass angle before D’s house whether a dancer was a party,” and “Isium at that time,” “Isn’t reply to the question “Isn’s dancing on D’s neck,” but had a significant physiological abnormal reaction.

In light of the above facts, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the facts charged of this case should be recognized that the defendant attempted to commit rape in the victim's item and to suppress resistance against the victim, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, but erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, it is difficult to view that the instant facts charged was proven guilty to the extent that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to have reasonable doubt.

(1) The free view that the offender used is currently not remaining and only the “stoptopology” taken from a glass view that the offender obtained at the site (hereinafter “the fingerprints of this case”) exists, and the glass view is far away.