Defendant .

A. Defendant: Each sentence (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, etc., and two years and three months: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and three months) imposed on Defendant by the first and second instance court of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor: Rape of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles). The lower court held that the Defendant’s statement, the direct evidence of Ma, which is direct evidence of whether the Defendant had exercised the victim M to the extent that it would be significantly difficult to resist the victim M under this part of the facts charged, and the intention to refuse sexual intercourse of M, cannot be deemed as having been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt on this part of the facts charged.

However, M does not necessarily have to respond to the Defendant’s demand due to the disclosure of the Defendant’s improper speech by drinking alcohol, or prior to college entrance and college entrance, and due to the Defendant’s complaint. As such, the causal relationship between the horses that the Defendant used to force M is recognized and the sexual intercourse is recognized, and the Defendant’s sexual intercourse is deemed to have committed M by assaulting and threatening M to the extent that it is considerably difficult to use such external psychological state as M to make it considerably difficult.

M is due to the fact that there is a circumstance that M gives a word in an atmosphere that seems to have a sense with the Defendant, or that there is a little difficult behavior to understand that M is an act of rape victim, such as talking with the Defendant in the past consecutive criminal defendant and the Maur, etc. However, this is due to the fact that the Defendant had forcibly induced the situation as if he had sexual intercourse by the agreement and led the Defendant to the situation as if he had sexual intercourse. As such, M, which had already been psychologically circulated, had no choice but to act as the Defendant’s desire to avoid the fear of the Defendant’s heart.

Therefore, it is true.