A. In relation to misunderstanding of facts, although the Defendant took property from the victim as described in the facts charged, the Defendant did not commit rape or have inflicted bodily injury by carrying a deadly weapon, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the charges charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one hundred years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part, and the lower court determined that the Defendant was rapeed and injured as stated in the facts constituting an offense, by taking account of the circumstances as indicated in the reasoning in its reasoning, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated. 2) The lower court’s conclusion is reasonable if it is determined based on the legal doctrine on the criteria for determining the credibility of statements by the victims of sexual assault, the rules of evidence, and the evidence, the lower court did not err in matters of law

3) In addition, the Defendant did not have his fingerprints on the family specified as used in committing the crime at a specified level, and was removed from the inside room where the victim had been raped (under the victim’s assertion, the Defendant’s sexual organ was cut off after subtracting the Defendant’s sexual organ inserted in the victim’s quality.

In addition, it is alleged to the effect that the victim's statement is not reliable on account of the circumstances in which one's own semen or DNA was not detected. However, the issue of fingerprint collection, semen or DNA detection can be a single circumstance supporting the existence of a crime, and thus, it cannot be a critical circumstance proving the absence of a criminal fact. Considering the above circumstances pointed out by the Defendant, the credibility of the victim's statement may be impeachmentd or prosecuted.