A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles against the Defendant: (a) he spawned the victim who was living in the cooling area in order to stop the fluoral disease; and (b) was in line with the victim’s head; (c) did not intentionally fluorize the victim’s head; (d) did not fluorize the victim’s head head or knife with the knife; and (e) did not flue the victim’s knife with the knife of the victim;

In addition, the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim and had the victim's body taken by obtaining the consent of the victim.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

C. The sentence of imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is as follows: (i) the victim made a concrete and consistent statement at an investigative agency about the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; (ii) the victim did not directly experience the situation at the time of the crime, the horses and actions that the defendant had committed, response to the victim, etc.; and (iii) the victim left the defendant's residence after the sex relationship with the defendant; (iv) the victim was living in the defendant's dwelling; and (v) requested the defendant to assist the defendant to look at the Kinto to the Kinto; and (v) the victim was able to write down the creto in order to keep the creto from the Kinto; and (v) the victim reported the defendant to the police at the victim's request; and (v) the victim reported the fact that there was no special doubt in the reporting process; and (v) the victim was the victim's relationship with the defendant for about three to four years prior to the occurrence of the case.