A. The summary of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (compeachment and confinement), witness E of the lower court (the first instance court), did not have credibility in the legal statement of the lower court, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the E’s legal statement in the lower court. Furthermore, the Defendant, upon the Defendant’s request, was guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground of the lower court’s oral statement. Furthermore, the Defendant merely took the victim under the influence of alcohol into his/her residence upon taking the victim’s dwelling at his/her own residence, and did not have the purpose of kidnapping or detaining the victim for sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, the lower court (the first instance court’s judgment) which found the Defendant guilty of each charges charged

B. The main points of the Prosecutor’s appeal (e.g., e., e., e., the sentence imposed by the lower court are too una

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, on this basis, stated in detail the circumstances as stated in its reasoning under the title “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” and determined that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s abduction for sexual intercourse and confinement as stated in the judgment of the lower court.

In full view of the circumstances duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that recognized the credibility of the testimony of the lower court by witnesses E of the lower court and convicted each of the facts charged of the instant case is justifiable, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.

The judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment of the court of first instance) cannot be said to contain any error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

1) As to the abduction of sexual intercourse, the victim’s workplace will be the victim’s workplace.