All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The main point of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the injury of the victim who misunderstanding the Defendant’s fact-finding (hereinafter “the injury of this case”) with stressed stress on the denial of the Defendant’s criminal act in the course of the agreement after the crime of this case was committed; and (b) thus, there is no relation between the crime of this case and the injury above.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The victim of the prosecutor's misunderstanding of the facts stated in the prosecutor's statement that "the defendant inserted the victim's sexual organ into the part of the victim's sexual organ" as well as that "the defendant was engaged in general action at the time of sexual intercourse with the victim's body and received the victim's sexual organ inserted into the part of the victim's sexual organ." Thus, the defendant's misunderstanding of the facts is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the part of the facts charged of this case that inserted the sexual organ into the victim's sexual organ is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts.

The sentence sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

It is unfair that the court below's improper exemption from disclosure or notification order is unfair to exempt the defendant from disclosure or notification order.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also argued the same purport as the above grounds for appeal: Provided, That the Defendant alleged that there is no likelihood of injury to the instant case at the lower court, and the reasoning of appeal also stated such assertion. However, at the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance, the Defendant maintained the Defendant’s assertion that there is no relationship between the Defendant’s act and the injury of the instant case and the Defendant

B. On the other hand, the lower court made a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion in the fourth to five pages of the judgment.