Therefore, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the probation order case, and despite the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the scope of judgment of this court is limited to the part of the accused case, and the part of the probation order

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant stated that “30,000 won was love once” to the victim, and the victim was able to receive money from the Defendant and received money.

Accordingly, the defendant left off the clothes of the victim, and the victim himself gets hurged with his sound, and the defendant hurged with his arms, and the victim hurged with his desire, and the defendant hurged with his house.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant to have raped the victim and found the defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The Defendant related to the incidental disposition has supported his/her family while serving as security guards, and the lower court is unreasonable to issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant for five years since it is impossible for security guards to work as security guards upon confirmation of the employment restriction order.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can recognize the fact that the Defendant raped the victim as stated in the facts charged in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① On July 24, 2018, the date of the instant crime, from July 10, 2018, the victim was assaulted by the Defendant to the police on July 24, 2018.