A. Defendant 1) In fact, Defendant 1 did not injure the victim on November 24, 2017, and attempted to rape on January 15, 2018.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted all of the crime of injury in this case and the crime of rape, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentencing of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (three years of imprisonment and forty hours of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the lower judgment by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uncomfortable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The probative value of the evidence of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is left to the discretion of the judge, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of formation of a conviction to find the defendant guilty in a criminal trial shall be sufficient to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence which has probative value without reasonable grounds shall not be permitted beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt about the probability of facts that are inconsistent with facts that are not necessary in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences, and it means a reasonable doubt about the probability of facts that are not compatible with facts that are not necessary in accordance with the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Thus, the circumstance favorable to the defendant should be based on the sexual reasoning that should be established in relation to the recognition of facts that is favorable to the defendant, and such doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility shall not be deemed as legitimate doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3624, Apr. 15, 2005).