A. Although a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the victim suffered bodily injury while rapeing the victim, the court below judged that the degree of injury did not reach the injury in the crime of bodily injury resulting from rape, and recognized only the crime of confinement against the defendant on the ground that the victim had attempted rape and had revoked the victim's complaint, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the grounds that the above mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as seen above affected the sentencing was unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that the part concerning this part of the facts charged was not guilty, with a detailed statement of the summary of the facts charged and its judgment on the case.

As a result of reviewing the results of the examination of the victim, which was additionally conducted in the trial, closely comparing the records of this case with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not judged that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles as to injury to rape as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unreasonable sentencing, the possibility of criticism is high in that the Defendant took the victim who was aware of the usuality for the purpose of rape and detained the victim.

However, the victim tried to stop rape, the victim does not want punishment even in the trial, and the defendant tried to stop rape.