The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the misunderstanding of facts or legal principles 1), the Defendant acted as if the Defendant were the same as this part of the facts charged. However, since the victim had already lent money to the Defendant, the victim is not deemed to have a causal relationship between the Defendant’s intimidation and the act of paying the victim’s money, and there was no intention to attack the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape), although the Defendant has threatened the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, the sexual intercourse with the victim has been established after a considerable period of time thereafter, it cannot be deemed that the victim has sexual intercourse by suppressing the victim’s resistance.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (five years of imprisonment, order to complete a program, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s face to drink on December 21, 2014, which is the transfer of this part of the crime, on December 28, 2014. On December 28, 2014, the Defendant used the victim’s face to sleep with the Defendant. On December 28, 2014, the Defendant threatened the victim by displaying four times the Defendant’s left cover with his/her office kacks, leading the victim to the part of a reservoir, leading the victim to “the dead person” on January 1, 2015. On January 22, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s request to grant a loan to the effect that he/she borrowed the Defendant’s money.