A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below, even though the Defendant did not commit a deadly weapon or intimidation to the victim, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is consistent with the empirical rule, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (i) the victim and the husband of the victim make a statement from an investigative agency to the lower court without any specific and contradiction with each other regarding the facts damaged by the Defendant; (ii) the crime of this case occurred before approximately two years and six months; (iii) the date of the crime was committed was a special day on the date the victim prepares for the confession of his/her father; and (iv) the victim was threatened with intimidation from a person carrying a deadly weapon, and thus, it is very satisfying that he/she has a detailed memory for a long time to the victim’s house through the statement and counsel’s opinion at an investigative agency; (iii) the Defendant has denied that there was no fact between the victim and the victim’s house through the statement and counsel’s opinion; (iv) the Defendant stated in the same consistent with the victim’s statement and part of the charges.