The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant asserted that, like the victim, the Defendant attempted to engage in a sexual intercourse naturally with the beer in one’s own room, and merely attempted to engage in a sexual intercourse with the victim’s face at one time, and did not rape by threatening the victim with a knife.

The argument is asserted.

B. In the appellate court’s trial process, there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of documentary evidence, and in the absence of reasonable circumstances to deem that the determination of the first instance court was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court determined the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel.

2. The lower court rejected Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the detailed circumstances in the item of “judgment” and found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Examining the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court closely with the aforementioned circumstances admitted by the lower court, there is no reasonable ground to deem that the lower court’s determination on this part of the judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.

This part of the judgment of the court below is justified.

Defendant

We do not accept the argument.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the foregoing shall apply.