A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of not having detained the victim against the victim's will, on the ground that the part of rape alleged to be erroneous in fact was a fact that there was a sexual intercourse with the victim, but it was under agreement with the victim, and there was no assault or intimidation against the victim to the extent that it is not possible to resist the victim. In addition, with respect to the detention part, the victim was able to drink the victim with the defendant, and the victim was free to do so, such as singinging the victim into the restaurant and singing with the defendant, and thus, the victim was not detained against the victim's will.

B. As seen above, it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s charges as to the attachment order, and the attachment order based on the above facts charged is also unlawful.

C. Even if the Defendant’s charges of this case are acknowledged, the Defendant’s imprisonment (six years of imprisonment, etc.) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The degree of the formation of a conviction for finding a guilty in a criminal trial of the relevant legal doctrine must be such that there is no reasonable doubt. However, this does not require any reasonable doubt to the extent of excluding all possible doubts. Here, the term “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact that cannot be matched with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than including any doubt and faith, and it cannot be deemed that a mere conceptual suspicion or abstract possibility is included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do221, Jun. 25, 2004; 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005; 2010Do12728, Jan. 27, 2011).