The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant merely prevented the victim from selling his two arms, which the victim would have frighted, and did not use violence against the victim, such as written in the facts charged.

2) The Defendant did not have received a request from the injured party for eviction.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and defense counsel’s assertion”, stated in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its determination, rejected the said assertion and convicted

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below in its proper reasoning, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is a violation of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

① The victim’s oral statement about the time when the victim demanded the withdrawal of the defendant is not consistent with the victim’s statement made in the investigative agency and the court of original instance.

(2) However, the victim consistently demanded the withdrawal of the defendant from an investigative agency to the trial court.

The statements of the court below F is also consistent with the statements of the victim.

③ In particular, in light of the fact that the victim was unable to cause the occurrence of the instant case and eight hours prior to the occurrence of similar rape, and that the victim’s oral statement by law was made after about one year and six months from the date of occurrence of the instant case, the victim’s statement by law was made after the lapse of one year and six months from the date of occurrence of the instant case, even if the victim’s statement with respect to the geographical part is inconsistent, it is erroneous for the victim.