A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Fact-finding (the fact-finding of a minor) does not have any fact that around November 11, 2014, which was the date and time of committing the crime as stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant did not interview the victim. Thus, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the 4 years of suspended sentence for 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with regard to the act of rape of minors from the first instance of November 11, 2014 to " around 15:00, the date and time of the crime". Since this court permitted the amendment, the issue of whether the facts charged are identical shall be determined individually on the same facts in light of the social factual basis, which serves as the basis for the relevant facts, and since there is a close relationship between one of the first facts charged and the revised facts charged, the basic facts of the two parties are the same if one of them is established as a crime, and there is a close relation between one and the revised facts, and the victim's fundamental facts are not established at the first instance court prior to and after the establishment of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1048, May 10, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 201Do12681, Feb. 16, 2012.).