The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the victim first kids the Defendant, kids the Defendant, kids the Defendant’s vessel, kids the Defendant, and insulting the victim, but there was no fact that the victim attempted to rape, as stated in its reasoning, was about attempted rape.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) A decision on the assertion of mistake of facts was made by the defendant in the original instance, and the court below rejected the above argument by clearly explaining the defendant's assertion and its decision in light of the title "the Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel". 2) In light of the difference between the method of assessing credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, or the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, and the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court by the time of the closing of arguments in the appellate court, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court by the time of

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3846, Jun. 24, 2010). 3, the victim’s statement is consistent, specific, and is consistent from the date of the instant investigation to the lower court’s trial, and is consistent with the statement and G’s statement. On the other hand, the Defendant’s defense is at an investigative agency.