All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The statements made by the Defendant (person in fact) and witness H are not reliable. The body of the victim, the victim’s clothes and body body, the DNA appraisal result, and text messages sent by the Defendant cannot be deemed as evidence proving the facts charged of the instant case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of attempted rape is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. According to the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts, the statement of the victim and H, and the result of appraisal that the defendant's upper cell was detected in the victim's pantyty, etc., the defendant may be found to have committed rape by inserting his sexual organ. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the charge of rape, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the charge of rape on the charge of rape, thereby finding the defendant guilty of only the attempted rape,

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Defendant; (b) the Defendant was gathered with H on May 19, 2015, immediately after the instant case; (c) H reported the Defendant to the police at around 06:30 on the same day; and (d) several red holess were discovered in the victim’s arms and descendants at the time; (c) the mixed DNA type was detected from the victim’s panty cell located in the victim’s panty; (d) training reaction between the victim’s title, left chest and the Defendant’s DNA type was detected; and (d) there was objective evidence that the Defendant attempted to rape the victim, such as the Defendant’s DNA type was detected; and (b) the victim was committed on the side of the investigative agency and the lower court’s consistent “H”.