A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Although the assault and intimidation that the Defendant used by the prosecutor’s victim had been significantly difficult to resist the victim’s resistance, the lower court held that the male victim was unable or considerably difficult to resist due to the Defendant’s intimidation at the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to see

In light of the facts charged, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of similar rape, which is the primary charge. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or violating the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination was based on the following circumstances: (a) as to the Defendant’s act indicated in the victim’s statement, and the victim’s trend alone, to the extent that the Defendant’s assault and intimidation was impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim’s defense; and (b) the lower court’s determination was based on the prosecutor’s mistake of the facts;

It is difficult to readily conclude that there was assault and intimidation to the extent necessary for the establishment of similar rape even with the rest of evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

For reasons of insufficient recognition, the court rendered a not guilty verdict of similar rape, which is the primary charge, and found guilty of forced indecent act, which is the primary charge.

2) The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the reasons stated in the judgment of the court below, i.e., (i) the victim took a toilet during the crime committed by the defendant, and (ii) the victim was unable to participate in the act of the defendant, and (iii) the victim was out of the defendant, and the defendant was unable to interfere with the act of the defendant, and (iv) the defendant did not interfere with or attached to the act of the defendant. It is so argued by the prosecutor.