The dismissed part of the defendant's case shall be excluded from the scope of trial of this court because it is separated and confirmed as it is, and the part for which the request for attachment order is also excluded from the scope of trial of this court, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the defendant case.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant paid money to the victim F (referring only to "victim" in the part concerning the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts) in misunderstanding of facts (related to the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.)) and decided to engage in a similar act, and then naturally, it led to the relation of sex with the consent of the victim.

The statements of the victim are inconsistent and contradictory to each other so that they are not reliable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged that the defendant suffered sexual intercourse with the victim by force by the victim's statement, etc. as evidence is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, etc.) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant argued to the same effect.

Based on the facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by force as stated in paragraph (b) of Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment.

(See Articles 10 through 15 of the original judgment). A thorough examination based on the same evidence is justifiable.