2. We cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion in full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court and the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court.

In the prosecution investigation stage and in the court of the court below, the defendant recognized facts between the places of crime in the prosecution investigation stage and in the court of the court below. However, in the prosecution investigation stage, the court of the court below denied only rape intention.

In addition to the circumstances such as the fingerprint taken from the tape surface used to prevent the victim from suffering from the crime at the time of the crime, the victim's panty and mass amount correspond to the Defendant's fingerprints, the victim's panty and the Defendant's DNA are consistent with the Defendant's DNA, and the probability of detection of the same information in the DNA of each other seems to be extremely rare. In addition, the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of this case can be sufficiently recognized.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.