A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not assault the victim or seize the victim’s property. 2) In order to establish the crime of robbery and rape as a combination of the crime of robbery, the robbery offender must commit rape in the opportunity of robbery.

① Although the robbery was completed, the rape of this case occurred between 04:40 and 05:00 when 30 minutes elapsed from the time the robbery was completed, and 1 hours elapsed from the time of the robbery; ② the Defendant was not going to stay at the scene of the crime, but is considerably out of the scene after leaving away from the scene; ③ the Defendant discovered a victim who was used to look at the scene to find memory of his act and to secure evidence about the amount of detention after dividing a considerable time conversation with G and then discovered the victim to obtain evidence, the rape of this case merely constitutes the crime of rape or quasi-rape, in full view of the following: (a) the rape of this case was committed after a considerable period of time has elapsed since the Defendant’s robbery was completely terminated; or (b) the act of rape of this case was committed by the intent of new rape after leaving the place.

Therefore, even if the robbery of the defendant is recognized, the crime of robbery and the crime of rape and the crime of quasi-rape are established, not the crime of robbery.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol so as to have weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

C. Even if all of the facts charged of this case are found guilty, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below and the trial court are legitimate.