The judgment below

Of them, the part of the acquittal on the charge of rape against Defendant A on February 19, 2014 is reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A’s injury is written on the date specified in this part of the facts charged, the number of times is only one time, as stated in this part of the facts charged, Defendant A’s injury was written on the date specified in this part of the facts charged, but the number of times is only one time. However, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, Defendant A her bucked twice with the victim.

The judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B) The victim’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is not reliable, and the P andO’s statement on the background of the crime is not consistent, and it is difficult to believe that there are parts that are inconsistent with the victim’s statement.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of each statement without credibility.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The victim’s statements that correspond to each of the facts charged are generally consistent and specific, and the credibility of the statement is not denied solely with the content of text messages or telephone conversations sent by Defendant A and the victim.

In addition, according to the statement of the victim and the statement of the diagnosis corresponding thereto, the relationship between the act of confinement on March 1, 2014 can be sufficiently recognized.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which rejected the credibility of the victim’s statement, and acquitted all of the facts charged.

B) It is difficult to reject the credibility of the victim’s statement on the sole basis of the facts cited by the lower court in the Defendant B’s intimidation.

“The Defendant B’s speech will threaten the victim’s body.”