A. In relation to the crime of attempted rape, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant committed a crime after the commission of the crime and discontinued himself, thereby constituting a crime of suspension under Article 26 of the Criminal Act.

2) In relation to the crime of confinement, the Defendant committed rape and requested the victim to leave the victim to F and thereby brought the victim to the above place. As such, the Defendant cannot be deemed to continue the act of confinement against the victim at least after rape was committed. The previous crime of confinement is not only overlap at the time and place with the crime of attempted rape, but also the act of confinement itself constitutes assault and intimidation, which is the means of rape. As such, the Defendant committed rape and attempted rape and the crime of assault under Article 40 of the Criminal Act are related to the crime of ordinary concurrence.

must be viewed.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, cannot be deemed to have suspended the Defendant as a person engaging in rape.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court related to the establishment of the crime of confinement, and the number of crimes committed with the attempted rape, namely, ① the Defendant is operating a vehicle at a place that the victim may know even after the rape was committed; ② the Defendant was married to a place where the victim might know of the crime; ② the Defendant was able to get off the vehicle because it was difficult for the Defendant to go out of the vehicle; ③ the victim was only the Defendant.

F. He shall return to F.I.D.