A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. misunderstanding of facts (the crime of Article 2 of the judgment in the original instance) is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that the Defendant, after committing the crime of rape and bodily injury, entered the victim and her mother, had drinking together with the victim, but did not have been raped by the victim because it is too difficult to avoid it. However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of rape (the crime of Article 2 of the judgment in the original instance) by misunderstanding of facts that the Defendant believed the victim's statement that the Defendant raped the victim within the her motherel and

On the other hand, the defendant's defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act of rape should be ruled to dismiss the prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the victim's defense counsel revoked the complaint on May 9, 2014, but the revocation of the complaint can only be made before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered (Article 232 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). As such, the victim's expression of intent to cancel the complaint after the judgment of the court of first instance does not affect

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court’s determination on the ground that the Defendant was guilty of committing a crime (hereinafter “first rape”) No. 1 of the judgment of the lower court, which determined that the Defendant was guilty of committing a crime (hereinafter “first rape”).

(2) Rape No. 2 of the holding that the Defendant still denies the crime in the trial (hereinafter referred to as “second rape”)

With respect to all of the facts charged, the victim's statement, which is the core evidence supporting the facts charged, was judged to be reliable in light of all the evidence, and was convicted of both crimes. The main contents of the judgment are the first rape where the defendant focused on committing the crime, but the court found the victim guilty of the second rape on the following grounds.

The lower court duly examined.