The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, erred by misapprehending the facts, based on the victim’s statement that is not reliable and convicted, even though the Defendant took the victim by force and did not inflict any injury on the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In a case where there are no new objective grounds that could affect the formation of documentary evidence in the appellate court’s trial process of a judgment on the assertion of facts, and where there are no reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of the first deliberation evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, the determination on the acknowledgement of facts in the first deliberation shall not be allowed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted that this part of the grounds for appeal are the same, and the lower court rejected this assertion in detail in the “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel” of the judgment.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules that the judgment of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was against the logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence even in the trial process of a court.

The lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the Defendant, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions 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.