Defendant

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

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for probation order as to a prosecuted case, a judgment ordering the attachment of an electronic tracking device for ten years as to the case requiring attachment order, and a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for probation order.

On the other hand, since only the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have appealed, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the probation order claim.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the request for probation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are only sexual intercourses under an agreement with the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there is no assault or intimidation against the victim.

The victim's statement is not consistent, and there are many parts found to be not facts by objective evidence, and therefore, it is not reliable.

The Defendant’s act of shouldering the alcohol with the alcohol imposed by the Defendant and displaying his arms toward the victim does not constitute a tangible event that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to resist the victim, and even if such act constitutes violence or intimidation, it is only a situation that occurred after all of the sexual relationships are terminated.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the basis of the victim’s statement and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of rape.

B. The original sentence of unfair sentencing (one-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the victim’s statement is consistent with its major contents, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in itself in light of the empirical rule, and there is also a false part.