The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not infringe upon the victim’s residence; (b) the Defendant opened a door to the victim, thereby entering the victim’s house; (c) the Defendant entered the victim’s house with the victim’s explicit or implied permission; and (d) did not have any intention to intrude upon the victim’s residence; and (c) even if the Defendant started the commission of rape, he did not commence the commission of rape; and (c) even if the police officer started the commission of rape, the Defendant’s arbitrary suspension of the act by the victim’s will before the arrival of the police officer, and thus, should be mitigated or exempted from punishment.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and did not reduce or exempt punishment on the ground that it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The above ①, ② the judgment on the merits (1) that the confession in the investigation agency of the defendant and the court of first instance is different from the statement in the appellate court alone cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of the confession. In determining the credibility of the confession, the determination shall be made on the confession of the defendant in consideration of the following: (a) whether the contents of the confession are objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession are objectively rational; (c) what is the motive or reason for the confession; and (d) what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession, and whether there is a situation to have a reasonable doubt in the motive or process of the confession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091 Decided September 28, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556 Decided April 29, 201, etc.). (2) The Defendant, at the prosecutor’s office and the lower court court’s court, tried to rape a victim by impairing the victim’s residence.