Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person whose attachment order is requested and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, the person subject to the request for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") or misunderstanding of legal principles (the criminal facts part of Paragraph (1) at the time of the original trial) the defendant had the intention to commit indecent act by compulsion, and there was no intention to rape the victim as stated in this part of the crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty.

In light of the agreement between the victims of unfair sentencing and the defendant, the defendant's imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes of the same kind when he/she was under suspension of execution due to the crime of injury resulting from rape, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the part of the Defendant’s case (the part concerning the criminal facts in Paragraph 1 in the original trial case), the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim D consistently and specifically states the situation at the time from the investigative agency to this court, and the victim D does not find any special circumstances to make a false statement, and thus credibility in the statement; ② the victim, which is credibility in the statement, was made at the investigative agency, “I panty, while panty was spanty through the Defendant’s spanty. I am spanty. I am spanty. I am spanty with the Defendant’s clothes so that I am off at the time when I tried to be off the clothes, and spanty was released in all at the time.” (Once 85 pages of the trial record, the evidence record No. 28), the Defendant also recognized the victim’s panty, not simply rape.