The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The Defendant alleged 1 of the first instance judgment: (a) the date and time indicated in Section 2-A of the crime in the original judgment; and (b) the victim’s name was knifeed with knife and knife with the hands-on floor; (c) however, there was no sexual intercourse with the victim or forced sexual intercourse with the victim as stated in the above crime; and (b) there was a fact that the victim tried to sexual intercourse with the victim by entering the Felel together with the victim around the time and time indicated in Section 2-B of the crime in the original judgment, but there was no threat that the victim did not have sexual intercourse with the victim by emitting insects as stated in the above crime in the first instance judgment; (d) there was no risk that the victim did not have sexual intercourse with the victim because it did not have sexual intercourse with the victim; and (e) the victim cannot have sexual intercourse with the victim.

There is no threat to the victim by stating that the victim will die as stated in Paragraph 4 of the crime in the original judgment, and there is only the fact that the victim said that the victim will withdraw the complaint.

The victim's statements that correspond to the facts charged in this part cannot be recognized as credibility because the contents of the date of damage are reversed and consistent or are contrary to other objective evidence, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to prove each of the above facts charged, but the court below convicted all of the facts charged in accordance with the above evidences. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The Defendant alleged 2 is entitled to engage in sexual intercourse against the victim’s will, even if he did not harden to commit the act of using knife or attaching insects to insects and gases as stated in the facts constituting a crime set forth in the judgment below. Thus, the Defendant’s own force alone does not constitute sexual intercourse against the victim’s will. Therefore, the Defendant’s carrying of dangerous articles.