All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

It is improper that the court below ordered the defendant to restrict employment, although the defendant was not likely to repeat the employment restriction order.

A public prosecutor's misunderstanding of facts (Rape) has consistently made a statement to the purport that the defendant was placed on his arms and forcedly sexual intercourse with panty, and thus has credibility in the statement, and in light of the content of the statement, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by exercising force against resistance against the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged by mistake.

The sentence imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

In light of the fact-finding by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the Criminal Appeal Court also has the character as an ex post facto trial, and in addition, in light of the spirit of substantial direct examination as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., even though the first instance court, which directly observed the appearance and attitude of the witness who is taking the witness examination procedure for the witness examination to support the facts charged, judged that the credibility of the witness's statement cannot be acknowledged, if the appellate court finds it possible to recognize the credibility of the witness's statement and intends to consider it as an evidence of guilt, the first instance court's judgment rejecting the credibility of the statement should be deemed to be sufficient and acceptable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court committed assault and rape to the extent that the Defendant made it considerably difficult to resist the victim’s resistance on the grounds of the reasons indicated in the 8 through 12 pages of the lower judgment.