The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. On July 5, 2019, the defendant has a sexual intercourse with the victim's consent (Article 1 of the facts stated in the original judgment). On that day, when the defendant photographs the victim's sound records, he/she does not have any frighten and clothes (Article 2 of the facts stated in the original judgment); he/she did not in intimidation the victim with a knife and face with a new wall on October 28, 2019 (Article 4 of the facts stated in the original judgment); he/she did not in itself sexual intercourse with the victim on November 4, 2019; even if he/she did not have sexual intercourse with the victim; and on November 5, 2019, the defendant committed a sexual intercourse with the victim's consent (Article 6 of the facts stated in the original judgment); however, on November 5, 2019, the defendant committed a knife of the victim, but did not threaten or threaten the knife (Article 7 of the original judgment).

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as to each of the above facts charged in the lower court’s determination of mistake.

In regard to this, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion may be rejected, and that the Defendant committed a crime as stated in each of the above facts charged, in detail, based on the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court (as stated in the lower court’s judgment 7 to 13 pages).

Examining the above circumstances revealed by the court below in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

In relation to the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below, in the video recording made by the defendant, the victim was covered by the victim and the victim was able to walk.