A. Defendant 1) In fact-finding, Defendant 1 merely left the house of the victim with difficulty to escape from frighting, and did not have attempted to commit a sexual intercourse. Defendant 2) Since misunderstanding of the legal doctrine voluntarily discontinued the instant crime, the Defendant constitutes an attempted suspension under Article 26 of the Criminal Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence against the Defendant is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts reveals that ① the victim was in conflict with the victim at the time of the instant case, ④ the victim was in conflict with the male problem, ④ the victim was in conflict with the victim at the time of the instant case, ② the victim was unable to discover any inconsistency or rationality in the investigation period and the entire contents of the statement, ② the victim was called Kakakaoox, “If the victim was informed of contact by 10 days before the date of the instant case,” and sent the Defendant’s contact address at around 09:18, ③ the victim’s title and arms, etc., ③ the victim was sent to the victim, and ④ the victim was in conflict with the victim at the time of the instant case, ④ the victim was in line with the victim at the time of the instant case, ② the victim was in line with the victim’s body, including Gwangju, Gwangju, etc., the victim’s locked team leader, etc., ⑤ the victim’s locked, “Iskn't have any other evidence or evidence.”