Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Rape) even though there was no difference in the fact that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim at the time of the instant crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (four years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1), the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges of larceny even if the facts charged were recognized, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Special Rape) on the ground that comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he/she threatened the victim with assault and intimidation, thereby suppressing his/her resistance, and rape.

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, considering the fact that the defendant acknowledged the fact that he had a sexual intercourse with the victim at the time of committing the instant crime in the court of the court below, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the court below by comparing it with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there are errors as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal in this part is without merit.

B. In full view of the circumstances established by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the lower court is difficult to believe the victim’s statement about the thief damage, and even considering other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficient to exclude a reasonable doubt as to the charges of larceny.