A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

A. As stated in Article 3 of the facts of the crime in the judgment below, the defendant does not have sexual intercourse with the victim by force, but has sexual intercourse with the victim's affirmative demand upon the victim's sexual intercourse.

The judgment of the court below that convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although there are special circumstances that may not disclose or notify the personal information of the criminal defendant in breach of an order to disclose or notify the disclosure or notification, it is unreasonable for the court below to order the criminal defendant to disclose or notify the personal information for a period of five years.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (4 years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. An ex officio determination prosecutor added “Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, such as Arranging Sexual Traffic, and Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act” to this court, and applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to a bill of amendment with the purport of adding business activities, which are all inclusive crimes, such as the changed criminal facts, among the facts charged in the instant case, “the reasons for re-use” under the facts charged in the instant case. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court because it is not contrary to the revised facts charged.

B. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant alleged to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, that “the victim actively sought a sexual relationship, and the Defendant only had a sexual relationship in response to the agreement,” and the lower court stated that “The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion and the judgment of this court” from 3th to 6th 17th 17 of the judgment of the lower court.