The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds for appeal are unreasonable because the court below's imprisonment (three years of imprisonment and forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

This part of the argument by the defendant submitted after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal is submitted after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal expires (Article 364(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act).

The time when the defendant and the victim met with the fact finding in the poor or prejudice of the court below is 30 minutes after the new wall 30 minutes, and the time when the defendant and the victim arrive at the office of the defendant is 4 times after the new wall 4.

The defendant was removed from his house, and the person who proposed to go to the house of the defendant is C and the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise.

In the case of the new wall 4, even though the parents are very unclear in the family of the defendant, the court below rejected that the defendant, the victim, etc. were engaged in drinking together and drinking together with the defendant.

The judgment of the court below that the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim's clothes violates the result of genetic identification, which is an objective evidence.

The victim's statement that seems to conform to the facts charged of this case is not reliable in light of various objective circumstances.

At the time of the instant case, the victim was not under the influence of alcohol and was not in the state of failing to resist.

The reason between the victim and the defendant's office was to engage in sexual intercourse.

The credibility of the victim's statement on the grounds that the defendant's office stands is doubtful.

The defendant's so-called "mar Island" is a clear evidence that it is not a farming wall but an opportunity to put it into the house.

The statement that the victim refused the defendant's right to the hand of the defendant and locked is not understood in light of the rule of experience.

After this case's sex relations, the situation of a shoulderer shall be shouldered in "divers."