All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The statement of the victim of mistake of facts is difficult to believe, and even though the Defendant did not rape the victim as stated in each of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. (2) The sentence (7 years of imprisonment, etc.) sentenced by the court below of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The key issue is consistently denying the fact that the Defendant had raped the victim from the investigative agency to the court of this Court. Since the direct evidence that could acknowledge this part of the facts charged is the victim’s statement, this paper examines whether the victim’s statement is credibility or not. 2) Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as a substitute for this part of the grounds for appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by recognizing the credibility of the victim’s statement on the grounds of the circumstances in its holding.

3) When determining the credibility of the victim’s statement in accordance with relevant legal principles (A) when determining the credibility of the victim’s statement, it is common that the victim’s memory in accordance with the empirical rule flows along with the passage of time; the victim of a criminal act is present in the court and at the bar of the defendant or his/her defense counsel, and is highly likely to cause suspicion as to whether the defendant or his/her memory would be threatened, thereby avoiding a conclusive statement and making a ambiguous statement, and accordingly, the victim’s major contents of the statement are consistent, consistent in light of the empirical rule, and there is no provision inconsistent or unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, and there is no provision inconsistent with the victim’s statement in itself, and there is no obvious motive or reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant.