At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking alcohol.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the imprisonment of three years and six months, and the imprisonment of 80 hours for sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as to factual mistake and mental and physical weakness, the lower court could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant had intended to rape the victim at the time of the instant crime.

The court below is just in finding the defendant as an injury to rape, and it is doubtful that the probative value or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the ground that the confession made by the defendant in the court of first instance differs from the legal statement in the appellate court.

In determining the credibility of confessions, the credibility of confessions should be determined in consideration of whether the contents of confessions are objectively reasonable, what is the motive or reason of confessions, what is the motive or reason of confessions, and what is the circumstance leading up to confessions, and what does not conflict with or conflict with confessions among other evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008; 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). As to the facts charged in this case, the confessions made by the defendant in the court of the court below are sufficiently recognized, and the statements made by the police against the victim, etc. are proven to reinforce the confession of the defendant as to the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged as evidence and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.