The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. G (alias) statements to the effect that the Defendant was quasi-rape-rape in a situation where the Defendant was locked under the influence of alcohol due to the gist of the grounds for appeal are consistent and reliable, and immediately after the commission of the crime, the fact that the Defendant attempted to commit the crime is also consistent with G.

Nevertheless, the court below did not prove that the facts charged of this case were not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Based on the judgment of the court, the defendant was acquitted, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts charged in the judgment below. The conviction must be based on the evidence of probative value sufficient to confident the judge that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the defendant's interest can only be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). In addition, in order for the victim to be convicted of the facts charged solely based on the victim's statement, the victim's statement requires high probative value so as to have little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. Determination of whether the defendant has such probative value should take into account not only the rationality, consistency and objective reasonableness of the statement itself, but also personal elements of the victim's sexual character, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 2012).

Before arrival in the studio of the defendant alleged in the place, he did not make a consistent statement on the quantity of drinking, and ② G was put into the above studio with the defendant.