A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the degree of injury to the left hand of the Defendant did not make it impossible or considerably difficult for the Defendant to resist the victim; (b) therefore, the Defendant exercised the force of force to force the Defendant to commit similar rape.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

B. In the appellate court’s trial process, there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and in the absence of reasonable circumstances to deem that the determination of the first instance court was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first instance should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The director of the protective observation officer interviews the Defendant, who is the subject of the protective observation around April 2016.

(I) At the time of the interview with the Defendant on April 2016, whether the Defendant’s fingers left the state of his fingers;

(1)(1) of the Act on the Protection of Defense Counsel(as regards a counsel's question, among those subject to protection observation) those who are physically interested shall not be able to fully memory in a clear sense.

Around April 2016, the degree of fingers stated to the effect that the Defendant’s fingers do not specially memory the Defendant’s fingers status.

O’s aforementioned statement alone was that at the time of the instant crime committed on April 16, 2016, the Defendant could not attempt to commit the similar rape by exercising force against the victim, with the degree of injury to the left hand hand, at the time of the instant crime.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in this court.

In addition, the defendant asserts that this part of the appeal is the same as the grounds for appeal.