The victim stated at the investigative agency that she was raped by she was under the influence of alcohol in a situation where the victim was in a room together with the defendant, E, and F, and that she was the defendant in a case where she was raped by sound of E and F.

At that time, the victim was only the victim's breath state, and the measures were compliance to the extent that the victim could not be identified by the victim, the defendant and the victim first met with the voice that it is difficult to distinguish between the defendant and the victim, and the F was the victim who was aware of the victim due to E's leakage in the side of the victim, and the victim rejected it.

On the other hand, the victim stated that E was seated on the breabbed, but he was not aware of the fact that E was trying to become aware of himself, and that the victim's statement does not coincide with F's statement as to matters punished between E and the injured person, and the victim did not memory under the influence of alcohol as to other facts at the time.

Although the defendant is clearly memoryd about the situation of rape, E also states that there is no fact that the defendant has observed rape, and states that there is no fact that the defendant had been raped with F. If the victim was raped from ar, he was in the same room.

In light of the fact that the possibility of e-mail cannot be ruled out, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement that he/she tried to identify the defendant as it is.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the statements of the victim who is not reliable. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (the completion of sexual assault treatment programs for four years and 120 hours) is too excessive.