In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

A. In relation to the crime of attempted rape described in Article 1A(1) of the misunderstanding of Facts, the Defendant did not have the intent to rape the victim G, and thus does not constitute a crime of attempted rape. In relation to the crime of attempted rape described in Article 1A(2) of the misunderstanding of Facts, the Defendant did not think of rape in the victim G and did not have any idea to rape, and there is no fact that the Defendant is correct in the part of the victim.

With respect to the crime of indecent act by compulsion as stated in Article 1(2) of the judgment, the Defendant did not put his fingers into the part of the victim. (b) The Defendant was in the state of having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of attempted rape, indecent act by compulsion, or quasi-decent act by compulsion. (c) The Defendant was in the state of having been under the influence of alcohol, and was in the absence or weak capacity to discern things or make decisions. The Defendant was sentenced to the punishment (Article 1(a) and (b)(1) of the judgment of the court below on unfair sentencing, five years of imprisonment with prison labor for crimes No.

2. Part of the defendant's case

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the charge of attempted rape as stated in Article 1 A(1) of the judgment of the court below, it is reasonable to view that: (a) as to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as follows: (b) the Defendant was out of the victim G seat and left the victim in the ward; and (c) the Defendant brought about the victim’s negative part after having taken a diesel form of boom in the toilet and taken the Defendant’s hand into custody; and (d) the Defendant attempted to take a part in the victim’s speech but failed to take part in the house; and (e) the Defendant’s words did not come out of the victim’s house, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s removal of the victim’s breath to interview the victim’s negative part after having taken out of the victim’s breath to have sexual intercourse with the victim at the time of committing the crime as described in Article 1 A(1)

(2) As to the attempted rape described in paragraph (2) of the judgment.