All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant had no intent to rape the victim by making it impossible to resist the victim; and (b) the victim was not in a state of resistance at the time of the instant case in light of the amount of the stroke m, the victim was not in a state of resistance; and (c) the victim was sexually in agreement with the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of rape of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (a punishment of four years, a surcharge of 174 won, a completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 120 hours, and a disclosure and notification of personal information for four years) is too unreasonable.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the above punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasy and unfair (the prosecutor has sufficiently recognized the reason for appeal that the defendant was sent to another victim at 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

Although the court below argued to the effect that there was an error of law due to mistake of facts, it withdrawn the above argument to the effect that the misunderstanding of facts on the first trial date of the first trial of the court below, and arranged the argument to dispute only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal. The above misunderstanding of facts cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and ex officio examination of the above misunderstanding of facts, as pointed out by the prosecutor, is erroneous as

The Defendant’s assertion of mistake in facts is not seen. The lower court also argued to the same effect as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this part may be reliable, and this part of the Defendant’s statement may be asserted.