misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with regard to special intimidation, the defendant was only harmful to the victim's sexual intercourse, and does not constitute intimidation, and did not intend to make intimidation, and did not commit assault as stated in this part of the facts charged only once with regard to the assault, and did not have committed an act of assault as stated in this part of the facts charged. The defendant did not have damaged that the visit loss as stated in this part of the facts charged was already broken, and this is a property owned by the defendant, and therefore, the crime of causing property damage is not established.

In addition, the statements of the victim and F are not reliable, such as the reversal of the statements in detailed parts.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant alleged that the lower court also argued that this part of the grounds for appeal is similar to that of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court directly summoned the victim and the witness, and then examined the victim and the witness, and then found the credibility of the statement by considering the circumstances indicated in the lower judgment, and found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s act of cultivating himself is sufficient to be deemed as a threat of harm

The following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim and F’s statements are consistent and consistent with the main parts, and the first instance court’s judgment on the above statements was clearly erroneous.

There are no special circumstances to recognize that maintaining the judgment is remarkably unfair, and there are no separate reliable materials to deem that the above statement is objectively acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012), and (2).