A. Defendant 1) At the time of the instant case, there was no intention to rape the victim by mistake of fact and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

In addition, since the defendant voluntarily ceased to commit the crime, the crime of this case constitutes an attempted crime.

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

3) There are special circumstances to exempt the Defendant from disclosure disclosure notification order.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the lower court acknowledged the following facts based on evidence duly adopted and investigated: (i) the Defendant discovered the victim who frightddd from his human body around his own time, and subsequently led the victim to a nearby alleyway; (ii) the victim did not get off his body and fighting; (iii) the Defendant frightd the victim with his body; and (iv) the Defendant used the victim’s body to get out of his body to get off his body; and (v) the Defendant used the victim’s body to get out of his body to get out of his body before her act of assaulting the victim; and (v) the Defendant did not request the victim to speak with money or things; and (v) the Defendant tried to get out of his body before her act of assaulting the victim, she did not take out the victim’s body before her act of rape.