A. In accordance with the agreement with the victim, the Defendant was only able to do so, and the Defendant did not commit similar rape.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the victim’s statement without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable for the lower court to order orders to complete education and to restrict employment.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, etc., the lower court also argued similar to the above purport of misunderstanding of facts. However, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by taking into account the following facts: (i) the victim’s statement from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court; (ii) the content of the statement is specifically and consistently stated that it was damaged by similar rape as indicated in the judgment; (iii) the victim’s statement is inconsistent with other evidence, such as D’s statement; (iv) the victim’s behavior and attitude after the instant case; (iv) the relationship between the Defendant and the victim at the time; and (v) the Defendant did not specifically state that the victim was victimized by rape when the victim visited the G Center on the following day of the instant case; (iv) it is difficult to see that the victim’s statement was false; and (v) the credibility of the statement in light of the victim’s attitude to the victim’s statement in the lower court; and (v) whether the statement conforms with the empirical rule or its credibility in determining the credibility of the victim’s statement or its reasoning.