Therefore, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the defendant case constitutes the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by misapprehending the legal principles and by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the defendant guilty on the facts charged that he/she believed only the victim's statement although he/she did not have sexual intercourse and rape with the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal on the misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the assertion of mistake of facts. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the “judgment on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion,” the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant raped the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime and inserted the Defendant’s sexual organ into

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, it can be recognized as legitimate. In particular, according to the testimony, etc. at the court of the court below by the victim, the defendant has prevented the victim's resistance, forced sexual intercourse with the victim, and then recognized the fact of inserting the victim's sexual organ into the victim's resistance in a situation where the victim does not resist. Thus, there is a particular injury to the victim's resistance.