A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

A. The Defendant (i.e., misunderstanding of facts) committed a sexual intercourse by agreement with the victim and did not commit an assault against the victim or rape against the victim whose resistance has been threatened. The cuplet of the victim’s cuplet was not caused by the rape on September 25, 2012, but caused by the assault on September 3, 2012.

Nevertheless, each court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding guilty of the injury resulting from rape or injury on the grounds of the statements made by the victim who is not reliable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on the defendant (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for six years and the second judgment of the court of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for three years) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the Defendant by the prosecutor (an unreasonable sentencing on the first instance judgment) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The first judgment case and the second judgment case against the defendant were consolidated in the judgment of ex officio (absent reversal). Each of the above concurrent cases against the defendant is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the part of the judgment of each court regarding the mistake of facts regarding each rape and injury is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. As to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in the spirit of the relevant legal doctrine, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or the first instance court’s examination result and the appellate court’s argument are additionally made until the closing of arguments