Since only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion, the dismissed portion was excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and there is no matter to be deliberated and judged ex officio.

Therefore, the scope of this Court's adjudication is limited to the conviction of the original judgment, and the conclusion of the original judgment is not followed with respect to the dismissal of public prosecution.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the fact-finding of the injury resulting from rape in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant did not exercise any specific force except to the extent to which he/she could enjoy in the course of rape. In addition, the injury suffered by the victim is extremely minor and naturally likely to occur in the course of rape and cannot be deemed to constitute the injury of the injury resulting from rape.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of causing rape or causing bodily injury to rape, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the punishment imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, 80 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, 3 years of disclosure and notification, and 1 cellular phone seizures) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the injury resulting from rape, the Defendant made a confession in both the facts charged of the injury resulting from rape in the prosecutor’s office and in the court of original instance. The court below held that the Defendant’s confessions and the evidence such as the victim E’s statements and the victim E’s statements in the prosecutor’s office.