In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserted that the Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) entered the victim’s house to steals an object, and do not commit an indecent act against the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) The lower court’s sentence (10 years of imprisonment, 7 years of disclosure and notification order) against the Defendant alleged unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

3) The lower court’s attachment order against the Defendant is unreasonable on the ground that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim in the part of the claim for attachment order.

B. Inasmuch as the Defendant committed a crime of special robbery at the time when he/she intrudes upon the victim’s residence with a deadly weapon, the Defendant constitutes a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by force on special robbery). ② The fact that the Defendant brought KRW 50,00 from the victim’s wall may be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each part of the facts charged is erroneous as a matter of fact.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant on the wrongful argument of sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is sufficiently recognizable in full view of the circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the victim’s statement, etc. as to the same purport as the Defendant’s grounds for appeal.

The court rejected the argument and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) In light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance court was clearly erroneous.

shall be deemed to be.