A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the crime of robbery, injury by robbery, and indecent act by compulsion in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant only frightened by the victim, knife the Defendant, and knife the Defendant, and knife the victim, did not directly use violence, and there was no fact that the Defendant’s sexual organ had the victim’s negative part of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted all the charges of robbery, injury, and indecent act by compulsion is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence of the lower court ( ① 7 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court; ② 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance court) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. After the judgment of the court below was rendered, the defendant filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold the two appeals together.

However, since each crime of the first and second judgment is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

In addition, on the second day of the trial of the court of first instance, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment of the court of first instance, which changed the part of the charges of indecent act by force to “I have the victim’s sexual organ in the negative part of the victim’s sexual organ” to “I have the victim’s sexual organ with his own bodily injury,” and this Court permitted it to change the object

The judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced one punishment for the remaining facts charged in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act can no longer be maintained in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of facts, and this is examined below (the defendant denies the changed charges of indecent acts).

. mistake of facts by the defendant.