Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person subject to a request for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) with the mind of misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant and the person subject to a request for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) have only a part of the victim’s chests, who was suffering from the vehicle while getting on and off the vehicle with the victim’s consent, and thereafter interviews the victim’s chests and sounds at the chief place of the vehicle.

However, at the time, the victim did not refuse or resist, but only the defendant refused to do so.

The defendant did not think that he had sexual intercourse by assault or intimidation without the consent of the victim, and later the defendant did not move to sexual intercourse, such as off clothes.

In light of this, it cannot be viewed that the defendant had the intention to rape.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, ten years of disclosure of personal information, and ten years of employment restriction) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court determined that the victim’s statement can be believed in light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim consistently states the principal part of the instant crime, including the background of the instant case, the Defendant’s speech and behavior, and the victim’s response thereto; and (b) the details thereof are not particularly unreasonable or contradictory and make a statement to the part unfavorable to himself/herself without any increase or decrease.

Furthermore, the lower court’s statement and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court are as follows: (i) the Defendant identified the victim’s contact address and sent text messages that seem to suggest the victim’s sexual intercourse; (ii) the Defendant demanded the victim to leave his/her place of residence to enter his/her place of residence; and (iii) the Defendant did not neglect the victim’s continuous demand to leave his/her place of residence.