A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not contain the victim’s fingers, and did not threaten the knife a knife, which is a deadly weapon, or saves the victim outside a passenger car, and the Defendant’s daily act cannot be deemed to have been committed together with the victim. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts is based on each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below: (i) the victim stated consistently in an investigative agency and court that the defendant was unable to wear a lock after assaulting his face and head within the vehicle; (ii) the defendant was released from the entrance of the rest area presumed to be safe; and (iii) the court below stated that the victim was unable to wear a lock; (iv) the defendant also stated that the victim was able to wear a lock; and (v) the defendant was also able to find the victim's hand, but the victim did not wear a lock at the time of the crime of this case; and (v) at the time of the crime of this case, the victim did not appear to have used the lock merely as an assault of the victim; and therefore, (v) the victim's statement cannot be acknowledged as credibility and credibility after the investigation of facts by the victim.