The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) lies in the victim’s statement that is consistent with the facts charged in the instant case in light of the fact that the victim did not have any motive to dismiss the defendant, the victim’s behavior immediately after the crime was committed is also extremely natural and consistently stated.

On the other hand, it is deemed that the victim's statement about the time when the victim sent K message to his/her relatives is not partially inconsistent with the CCTV images of the telehallway, but it is insufficient to reject the credibility of the victim's statement as to the facts of damage solely on the fact that the victim's confusions about the time of sending K in urgent circumstances.

Although the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by erroneous determination.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court: (a) commenced the commission of the crime of rape, including: (b) the Defendant’s assault or intimidation to the extent that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor sufficient to suppress or substantially difficult resistance;

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) In a place from which a person who suffered from CCTV was exposed to outside the telescope, the victim walked with Handphone while making a handphone, and did not request any particular help to an employee of the telescope. This is not consistent with the statement of the victim that the victim got out of the telescope because the victim attempted rape of the defendant.

② On the day of the instant case, the victim sent K message stating that “J children” was sent to one’s former male-gu (J) around 09:28 on the day of the instant case, and one’s friendship I around 09:29.29 on the day of the instant case, and the victim sent K message stating that “componing, sending now,” and that this comparison with CCTV images would be deemed to have been sent before the victim went out of the telecom.

In doing so, the defendant is within the telecom (203p. 203) as argued by the victim.