The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of a misunderstanding of facts and a misapprehension of legal principles shall be deemed to have sufficiently proven that the victim suffered bodily injury in the crime of causing similar rape since he/she consistently and specifically stated that the victim was faced with the crime by committing similar rape, and the volume of the bloods discovered at the place of crime is reasonable. However, the court below acquitted the victim of the charges of causing similar rape, and found only the crime of causing similar rape. The court below erred by misunderstanding of

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of suspended sentence for two years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below stated that ① the victim made a statement in the police that “the victim started blood transfusion from the part at the time of the crime of this case to 3 to 4 days,” but the prosecutor stated that “the victim did not have blood transfusion at the time of the crime of this case, and the doctor did not have blood transfusion at that time.” The police statement is not consistent with the prosecutor’s statement. It is difficult to believe that the victim’s body was naturally cured and did not reach the victim’s body injury. According to the prosecutor’s statement, there is room to deem that the victim’s body was naturally cured and was not injured. ② The victim stated that he was diagnosed with the child and the medical care benefits of this case but did not specify the child’s body and the fact was not confirmed by the medical care benefits of this case, ③ The victim did not have any blood transfusion and the diagnosis report submitted by the victim, and ④ the victim did not appear at the police officer’s body without being raped.”