The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Seized video files (Evidence No. 2.) 42

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the legal principles on the Japanese indictment is the relationship between the defendant and the victim D (n, 22 years of age) and about four months prior to the first head of the charge.

The defendant has been trying to see himself/herself by considering his/her own criminal records of violence and considering him/her when there are many people, and the victim has been suspected that he/she has come up with another male or has been locked with another male, and has been continuously pursuing the male relationship of the victim.

“.....”

This is in violation of the Japanese rule of indictment by stating the reason why the court may make a pre-assessment of the court. Therefore, the period of the public prosecution is incomparably legal.

B. On September 16, 2016, the Defendant’s injury resulting from confinement among the misunderstanding of facts 1) refers to a dynamic film distribution, etc., or the victim did not have any other confinement by putting the victim again in the situation where the victim escaped outside the Defendant’s home on September 16, 2016, and otherwise, the victim could escape from the Defendant at any time at any time, but could have been voluntarily carried out with the Defendant in the mind that he would have attempted to restore the relationship with the Defendant. In addition, in light of the degree of injury suffered by one victim, it is clear that there was no assault that could constitute a cruel act.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) With respect to rape, the Defendant did not have any attacked by assaulting or threatening the victim at the time of sexual intercourse with the victim on September 16, 2016, and on September 17, 2016.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) 카메라 등 이용 촬영의 점에 관하여 피고인이 휴대폰 플래시를 켠 채로 촬영할 당시 피해자는 이에 아무런 이의를 하지 아니함으로써 그 촬영에 묵시적으로...