A. In full view of the statements made by a prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts concerning attempted rape and similar rape) and the circumstances in which a special intimidation acknowledged by the lower court guilty was committed, the fact that the Defendant attempted to engage in sexual intercourse and rape by assaulting and threatening the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted all of the facts charged.

B. As to Defendant 1’s mistake of facts (the point of special intimidation) and special intimidation, the victim is not consistent with the statements, such as continuing to reverse the statements on the date and time when and how there was a special intimidation.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by reliance on the statements of the victim without credibility.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the summary of this part of the facts charged (the charge of attempted rape and rape) is as follows: (a) the Defendant became aware of only the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) and entertainment establishments from January 2007; and (b) lived with the victim from January 25, 2007; (c) however, the Defendant was able to take into account around July 25, 2014 due to frequent violence, appearance, sexual abuse, prison entrance, economic uncertainty, etc.

Even after the Defendant had been faced with the victim, there was a fact that the victim reported several times to 112 by threatening the victim to know about the fact that the victim would work at a entertainment establishment, etc. The victim had been under severe stress and uneasiness. As a result, the victim was found to have been under medical treatment. The Defendant found the victim's residence in several times, and provided the victim with a sexual intercourse and responded to the victim's request for a sexual intercourse with the victim, then the Defendant did not have a proper sexual intercourse with the Defendant’s medication relation.