A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding 1) The Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged, depending on the victim’s statement that is inconsistent with objective evidence-related relations and is unable to believe, even though there was no similar rape by inserting the victim’s fingers into the part of the victim’s sound records.

2) Although the assault required in a similar crime of rape should have reached such a level as to make it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the other party as in the crime of rape, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assault, which is a constituent element of a similar crime of rape, to determine that the degree of assault in a similar crime of rape was sufficient to make it difficult to resist the other party’s resistance, such as the assault by force.

Furthermore, according to the statement of the witness K in the lower court, there was no assault to the extent that it would make it difficult to resist the victim. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

3) Since the Defendant was aware that the victimized person was aware of having taken part in the disease, the Defendant’s intentional rape cannot be recognized.

4) The outer part of the victim’s outer part does not constitute an injury resulting from similar rape, and the act of the defendant does not constitute an injury to the victim of stressed stress caused by the victim’s act.

It is also difficult to see it.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. It can be deemed that there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate court’s trial process in the determination of the remaining allegations of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles except the part of assault, and that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is because the first deliberation judgment was clearly erroneous or the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was contrary to logical and empirical rules.