All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A public prosecutor, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles [Special Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes] The defendant asserted so-called a water surface protection certificate and tried to divide the victim's entrance and face without immediately escaping from the place as stated in this part of the facts charged. Such an act may be seen as having taken place with the intent of rape to suppress the victim's resistance with the intent of rape. The defendant recognized that the defendant had the intent to sexual intercourse in the course of investigation. The defendant went out of the victim's house after intrusion upon the victim's house and went out of the victim's house, did not have any preparation for the subsequent treatment of the victim's self-defense, and prepared Mask to prepare for the escape of the victim. In light of these circumstances, in full view of the fact that the defendant plans to commit rape, not simply attempted to commit self-defense but to commit rape, it shall be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed rape with the intent of rape.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charges on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had attempted to commit rape, and even if having attempted to commit rape, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had commenced the crime of rape. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The Defendant first committed the instant crime on the ground that the victim had known about the new wall during the process of delivering the instant food prior to one week prior to the instant crime. Such motive for the instant crime cannot be socially acceptable, and the Defendant is the defendant.