All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although there was no fact that the Defendant forced the victim to have sexual intercourse as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted the Defendant of the charges of attempted rape of this case on the basis of the victim’s statement without credibility. In this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) The victim of the misunderstanding of facts consistently states that “the defendant led the victim on or around September 2018 and around October 2018, he was released from the victim’s clothes, and then inserted the victim’s sexual organ on his body into the victim’s sound book.” Although the facts charged for each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the instant cases can be sufficiently recognized, the court below acquitted the victim. Thus, the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) The judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, and thus unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

3 It is improper that the court below's improper exemption from disclosure and notification order did not issue an order to disclose and notify information to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. Although the probative value of evidence of the relevant legal doctrine regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is left to the free judgment of the judge, such judgment shall conform to logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial shall be such that there is no reasonable doubt. However, this does not require the degree of exclusion from all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds, which is recognized as having probative value, is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The term “reasonable suspicion” in this context, is not all questions and correspondence.