The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the facts that the Defendant exceeded clothes from one another at the victim’s home and attempted to commit a sexual intercourse with the victim, but this does not have to be forced, and renounced a sexual intercourse due to the Defendant’s impossibility of birth, and despite the absence of credibility of the victim’s statement that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the lower court also made a claim similar to the grounds for appeal. In the lower court, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by taking into account the following circumstances: (i) the victim voluntarily reported 112 immediately after the damage, (ii) the victim’s center at sea and made a concrete and clear statement about the damage from the original court to the original court; and (iii) the victim’s baturology C in the 17th of the same month as the result of the 16th of October 2012 test on the water surface conducted on October 16 and the 17th of the same month on the 4th of the same month, one time out of the baturology reaction during the 80% period of normal launch and the 25 minutes period of the baturology, and the fact that the Defendant’s ability was lower than that of the 25th of the normal weather, or that the Defendant’s testimony was not completely lost as evidence to prove the results of the CD evidence duly adopted.

Although it appears to the effect that the statements of the victim mentioned above are admitted as evidence, the results of the above verification are admitted as evidence.