A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to attempted rape), the Defendant’s body was dissipated and cut off part of his left arms, and thus cannot be subject to assault and threat to the degree of suppressing the victim’s resistance. In addition, as the Defendant voluntarily responded to sexual intercourse by the victim, such as the Defendant’s violation of his standing at the time of attempting to engage in sexual intercourse, the causal relationship between the Defendant’s use of force and sexual intercourse is not recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of attempted rape of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and 80 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The first instance court also argued to the same effect in determining misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court held that ① the victim made a consistent statement with this part of the facts charged at an investigative agency to the present court, and the content of the statement is contradictory or there is no part contrary to objective circumstances, ② before the crime of rape was committed, the victim dices with the Defendant, as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the lower court, and temporarily lost awareness of the injury from the Defendant during the crime of rape. Since the physical condition was not good, the victim was unable to properly hold his body at the time of committing the crime of rape. ③ The Defendant was able to divide the victim into his body on the ground that he did not refuse the victim’s self-injury despite his refusal, the victim saw three the victim’s sexual intercourse with his body, and the victim was able to see the victim’s father and her father as above.