The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not commit rape on the premise that the Defendant had sexual intercourse under mutual agreement with the victim on the premise of marriage with the victim.

If the details of the use of mobile phones, text messages, etc. between the defendant and the victim are verified before and after the point of time of gender relationship, they may be easily confirmed.

In addition, the time and post of each rape crime in the decision of the court below was changed later.

(The first case where the defendant and the victim purchased the Red Seas and the Preams of this case with convenience store) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the facts charged of rape among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a judgment of acquittal on the part concerning the violation of the Resident Registration Act among the Defendant’s case, conviction on the remainder, and dismissal of the prosecutor’s request regarding the part regarding the application for attachment order.

Notwithstanding Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders for lack of interest in appeal as to the part of the claim for attachment order filed only by the Defendant, this part is excluded from the scope of judgment of this court (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82Ga611, Jan. 18, 1983, etc.).

A. At the request of the defendant or his/her defense counsel, the defendant or the victim sought information on the transmission and reception of mobile phone devices used by the defendant and the victim, and text messages, etc. in order to conceal the credibility of the statement made by the victim of rape, but the period of storage of the institution holding data could not be confirmed after the lapse of such period.

In the end, the credibility of the statement of rape victim is legitimate in the court below.