In addition, the appeal concerning the case of the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor, and the case of the attachment order request.

A. On January 3, 2013, the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant 1”), alleged a mistake of facts, the crime committed on January 3, 2013, committed first with the victim and the victim had sexual intercourses with the victim’s body and sexual organ. On January 24, 2013, the crime committed on January 24, 2013, the Defendant was faced with the victim’s face, and immediately after that, the victim was faced with the victim’s body and had sexual intercourse with her sexual organ, the lower court convicted the Defendant of all the charges by misunderstanding the facts, and found the Defendant guilty of all the charges. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (seven years) declared against the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court sentenced the Defendant to an order to attach an electronic device for a period of 10 years despite the high risk of recidivism by the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing (i) the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence at the time of the lower judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant committed rape or rape to the victim can be sufficiently recognized.

① The victim was raped by the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court below.

The statements to the effect that rape or injury in question has been brought about specifically and consistently.

② At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant recognized the facts of assaulting the victim and of sexual intercourse with the victim. The Defendant, in 2012, had been sentenced to one year to imprisonment with prison labor for committing the crime, such as setting fire at the user operated by the victim, and assaulting the customer by the user. As such, even though the victim was seriously assaulted by such Defendant, the victim had sexual intercourse first caused the Defendant to do so.