The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts did not inserting the fingers into the part of the victim’s sound, because he/she attempted to rape the victim at the time and place as indicated in the lower judgment, but did not bring the victim into the part of the victim’s sound.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that the Defendant was raped by inserting the sexual organ.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts also asserted to the same purport, and the court below is reasonable to deem that the defendant was found to have detected DNA type: (i) considering that mixed DNA type was found to have been detected in the entire three parts of mixed sea areas except for only a part of the special type of mixed sea, where the defendant possessed by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, and as such, it was limited to the defendant's exclusion of mixed sea area, where he was worn by the victim after entering fingers into the part of the mixed sea area, and the defendant's assertion that mixed DNA type was detected only on the specific part of the mixed sea area. (ii) contrary to the defendant's assertion that the defendant was discovered only on the part of the specific part of the mixed sea area, it is reasonable to view that the mixed shape was detected in the whole part of the mixed sea area by inserting the sexual shape into the part of the victim, and the victim stated that the defendant had consistently inserted his sexual organ into the part at the time of investigation, and that the defendant did not have any contact with the defendant at the time of entry into the destination and answer by the defendant.