In addition, all appeals filed by the person whose attachment order is requested and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. misunderstanding of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, and the victim against the rules of evidence, did not have any intention to commit quasi-rape. The lower court erred by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the rules of evidence. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, order to disclose personal information, and restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment. In Articles 4 through 9 of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by recognizing and using the victim’s state of mental disorder or the state of his/her refusal to resist, on the grounds that (i) the victim’s statement is natural, natural, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the content of the statement, even though the victim’s statement is specific in the main part; (ii) the victim’s blood appraisal on blood is confirmed to be 0.219%; and (iii) the victim’s blood alcohol level at the time of the victim’s injury was in the state of mental disorder or the state of his/her refusal to resist. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence

(2) This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) If the judgment added by this court is the only evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in the crime of rape, the Defendant’s statement is unreasonable in light of the empirical rule and cannot be believed to be contradictory and contradictory in itself.