A. The victim’s statement, which corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, is not reliable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

B. Although it is not clear that the statement of the reason for appeal of the submission of unfair counsel for sentencing is abstract, it is also deemed that there was an unfair argument for sentencing in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court Order 2002Mo265 Dated December 3, 2002.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months, etc.) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court asserted that the Defendant asserted that, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the Defendant only asserted that he/she did not raped the victim as described in the instant facts charged, as otherwise alleged in the lower court.

In regard to this, the court below found the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim's statements at investigation agencies and courts of the court below regarding the facts charged of this case, which are very specific and consistent, and difficult to find any inconsistent part in light of the empirical rule, and ② According to the gene appraisal result, it was confirmed that the victim's chest was detected (DN) punishment in terms of inside the victim's chest and brogate, and "other liquid reaction" was detected, and the victim's panty pande was detected (DN) punishment in the victim's panty part and hacker part (the 138,139 side of evidence record). The victim's statement conforms to the victim's statement, ③ blood and alcohol test result (0.18% of blood alcohol concentration) and the victim's statement at the time of the crime of this case against the victim, etc. taken around November 5, 2019.