A. Defendant 1’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts (as to the crime of Paragraph 2 of the judgment below’s holding), although there was a fact that the Defendant attempted to have sexual intercourse with the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and thereby, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the victim’s desire was changed before inserting the sex, resulting in the suspension of the crime.

2) The lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine (as to the part not guilty in the reasoning of the judgment below), the Defendant does not look at the victim’s “humbing.”

“A person who commits violence or intimidation to the extent that it would make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim by making an accusation.”

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby making it difficult for the Defendant to resist the victim, thereby assaulting and threatening him/her to the extent that he/she may significantly impede his/her resistance.

It is difficult to see

By judgment, there was a mistake that affected the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the lower court.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that, according to the evidence in its holding, the defendant was found to have suspended the victim from inserting his body on the vehicle, left his body on the vehicle with his body, left his body, frighted his chest, left his breast sea, kiding his chest, and attempted to put the victim into a post where the victim was frightd. When the part of the defendant's sexual flag entered the body of the victim, the victim was changed, and the defendant was found to have suspended from inserting his body and did not proceed to his sexual relation any longer.

2) The lower court comprehensively takes into account the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.