A. 1) The crime of causing serious confinement (hereinafter “the crime of causing serious confinement”) under the provision of paragraph (1) of the 2019 Highly 200 case in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the crime of causing serious confinement”).

In relation to the crime of rape in the case of “No. 2(a)” in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the crime of rape in the first place”), the Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged. 3) The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the victim at the time and place indicated in the judgment of the court below in relation to the crime of rape in the case of “No. 2019 Manhap200” (hereinafter “the crime of rape in the second place”) in the case of “No. 2019 Manhap200” (hereinafter “the second crime of rape”).

(4) In relation to the crime of serious confinement injury and the crime of secondary rape (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “crimes in dispute”) on the basis of the victim’s statement, etc., the court below found the Defendant guilty of all the charges concerning the crime of serious confinement injury and the crime of primary and secondary rape (hereinafter referred to as the “crimes in dispute”) based on the victim’s statement, etc., which is very contradictory and inconsistent with the victim’s request. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the probative value of evidence 1-related legal principles as to the allegation of mistake, such as mistake of facts, is left to the free judgment of a judge, such judgment shall conform to logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial shall be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require any possible doubt, and it is rejected by causing a suspicion that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the probative value exists.