Notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the request for attachment order among the judgment of the court of first instance is excluded from the scope of judgment of this court as there is no benefit in appeal against the Defendants, and only the accused case of the judgment of the court of first instance falls under the scope

Of the judgment of the court of first instance on the part of the defendant W, the defendant is guilty of a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Rape) in the summary of the grounds for appeal on the part of the judgment on the defendant W. The defendant paid the victim's sexual relation expenses in the way he was faced with the victim AP, combines the victim's grandchildren into tapes with the victim's consent, and began to commit robbery thereafter.

Nevertheless, the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged that the Defendant committed rape by threatening the victim’s knife on the sole basis of the victim’s unilateral statement was erroneous.

The punishment of the court of first instance (nine years of imprisonment, etc.) on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts was alleged to the same effect as the first instance court’s judgment (hereinafter “the judgment on the part concerning Defendant W” in the first instance court’s judgment).

The lower court rejected Defendant’s assertion and convicted Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

The victim has consistently stated the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the details and details of the crime, and the behavior of the defendant.