A. In the date stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not have to put the victim's fingers into the part of the victim's sound, and even at the date stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment, the defendant attempted to have a sexual intercourse with the victim as the husband of the victim, but only did not want the victim, and there was no assault or intimidation in the process

In addition, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant and the victim maintained a marital relationship with daily living together, and did not separate themselves.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court should have reasonable grounds to deem that the first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unreasonable because it is against logical and empirical rules, in the event that the appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance court’s determination after an ex post facto determination, despite the absence of any objective reason that could affect the formation of the conviction, and that the first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous, or that the first instance court’s determination was subsequently made after the fact-finding, and without such exceptional circumstances, the first instance court’s determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.