All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts, (1) by the statement, etc. of the victim E, the defendant may be deemed to have sexual intercourse with the victim after threatening the victim to inflict bodily injury on the above victim due to a shoulder-sicker's disease, which is a dangerous object at the end of March 2014, and by threatening or threatening the victim to suppress his resistance.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapons, injury, etc.) and rape around the end of March, 2014.

② In light of the fact that there is no false statement that the above victim made a statement to the effect that “The victim reported” while reporting the fact of assault, and that the victim’s statement at court contrary to the above victim’s statement cannot be trusted in light of the relation with the defendant, the defendant may be deemed to have abused the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of the investigation warrant in a criminal case.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, among the facts charged in this case.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, in the criminal trial of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, injury by a deadly weapon, etc.) and rape around the end of March, 2014, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes the judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof was not sufficiently enough to have the aforementioned conviction, it should be determined as the defendant’s interest even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictoryly or uncomfortable.