A. Defendant 1) Fact-misunderstanding (Rape) was committed by the victim C, who had a relationship on the day of the instant case, with the victim C, committed an assault by singing a man’s talk with the victim, singing the victim with a defect in singing a man’s talk, etc. However, the victim, first of all, had sexual intercourse with the Defendant, and had sexual intercourse with the victim three times by suppressing the victim’s resistance.

When the victim filed an appeal with a medical certificate attached, but the prosecutor judged that the victim's statement was not reliable, the victim did not prosecute the part of the injury.

In light of these circumstances, there is a possibility that the victim did not have been raped by the defendant for monetary reasons, even though he did not have been raped by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of rape is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (two years of imprisonment for the crime No. 1 as indicated in the lower judgment, and fines of KRW 3,00,000 for the crime No. 2 as indicated in the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Of the evidence regarding the facts charged of this case, the remaining evidence, except each statement in the victim's investigative agency, the court below, and the court of the first instance, is insufficient to view the victim's statement as evidence supporting the victim's statement or having independent probative value as evidence supporting the facts charged. Thus, the victim's statement is the only direct evidence as to the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, I first examine the credibility of each of the statements in the victim's investigative agency, the court below, and the court of the first instance, and the defendant and the defendant.