A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

, however, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Although the Defendant did not rape the victim in 2004, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and even if the Defendant was guilty, the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of disclosure and notification order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The result of genetic testing through DNA analysis, which is a scientific evidence method for determining the defendant's assertion of mistake, has high reliability insofar as it is recognized that an appraiser with sufficient professional knowledge and experience conducted an appraisal using generally established standard testing techniques and the analysis of the result was conducted through adequate procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do588, Sept. 20, 2007). The court below found that the results of genetic testing conducted by the National Institute of Scientific and Investigative Research with an appraisal request prepared by the National Institute of Criminal Research and Investigation, the written appraisal request prepared by the DNA investigative officer of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (the re-assessment was conducted by the defendant DNA newly extracted on June 26, 2013 to prevent misunderstanding), and that the victim who reported rape was to be an E hospital, and that the victim was not the victim who was found to be the victim who was found to have reported rape, and that the gene collection method was not the same as the result of genetic testing conducted by the victim x the victim's quality x the defendant's gene collection type 1, not the genetic type 4.

Considering that there is no special circumstance to deem that there was no adequate procedure in the process of analyzing the gene type detected by or from it, the defendant raped the victim on May 23, 2004 as stated in its reasoning.