A. In fact, although the Defendant merely sealed the victim, and did not inflict an injury upon the victim when taking the victim’s face, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court made a consistent statement to the effect that the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the lower court regarding the assertion of facts: ① the victim has consistently stated the facts of damage; ② the Defendant and the victim’s wife consistently stated to the effect that “the victim was suffering from her fright and suffering because the victim was frightened with his her fright G, thereby suffering from suffering from suffering from suffering from suffering; ② immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, F and G reported to the effect that “the victim was prevented from entering the Defendant’s entrance into the police,” and “the victim shall have to have her husband come,” and the victim reported to the police to the effect that “the victim was frighten” was supported by the statement of the victim and F; ③ the Defendant and the victim had a frequent dispute over sexual relations; and ④ the Defendant had a strong motive to assist the Defendant’s sexual intercourse on the grounds that the victim had been requested, and the Defendant had a strong motive or a strong motive to commit the Defendant’s act without reporting the Defendant’s testimony to the police.