To order the defendant to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

On May 2, 2015, at around 01:0, the Defendant drinks alcohol with victim G (at the age of 21), victim H, Defendant-friendly I, in front of the “Fmat” located in Gangnam-si D.

The defendant saw the victim to suffer from the defect that he intends to go in his house while drinking, talks with the victim, and went to the Judio 204 in Gangseo-si where the victim resides with the victim.

The Defendant, when the victim arrived at the above room, she was sleeped in a stude, and she sleeped with a mind to rape by causing a sleep between the stude and the stude of the stude, and she was kid by the victim, and the Defendant was kidd with the stude of the stude with the hand of the stude with the stude.

The Defendant continued to be drunk and forced to resist, exceeded the victim’s panty and panty, and inserted the victim’s body’s sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sound, thereby committing rape once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Application of the police statement law to H

1. Article 299 of the Criminal Act and Articles 299 and 297 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed;

1. In light of Article 47(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Exempted from an order to disclose or notify, the proviso to Article 49(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the motive and background of the instant crime, the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, and the Defendant’s primary offender, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant