The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

. Information on the Defendant.

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (in relation to special intimidation and rape), the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) cited the kitchen knife as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as paragraphs 1-A (special intimidation), 2-B (special intimidation) and 2-A (special intimidation) and b) of the criminal facts indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the victim did not rape, the court below found the victim guilty by reliance on the victim’s statement without credibility. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the ground of ex officio appeal as to the part of the case of the defendant, the prosecutor examined ex officio, and after remand the case, the prosecutor applied Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as "special intimidation", and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act as "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" of the applicable law as "Article 284 of the Criminal Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the court permitted the amendment of the indictment. This part of the facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further.

However, even if there is a reason to reverse the judgment of the court below ex officio as above, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court before and after remanding, the Defendant is identical to the facts constituting the crime in this part.