The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When the defendant requires a sexual intercourse to the victim, the victim does not intend to rape in order to have sexual intercourse in response to the request of the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, five years of information disclosure order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the mistake of facts, the court below also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal. The court below held that the following circumstances acknowledged as follows: (i) although there are some differences in the victim’s statement from the investigation process to the court of the court below, this is merely incidental, and considering the passage of time, it cannot be viewed as impeding the consistency of the victim’s statement; and (ii) the credibility is recognized because the remaining statements maintain specific and consistency in the contents from the case of suspicions prior to the transfer of this case; (iii) although the court of the court of the court of the court below denies the crime, the defendant was recognized as substitute for the crime of attempted rape against the victim at the time of investigation by the prosecution; and (iv) the defendant was found guilty of the facts charged, taking into account the following circumstances: (i) it was acknowledged that the F who was working at the el operated by the defendant and the former wife had attempted to rape the victim only once the victim was about to have been tried by the victim.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the trial court, since the victim's statement maintains consistency in specific and core matters, it is reliable, the court below believed the victim's statement.