A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the charge of this case, although there was no intention to quasi-rape the victim, by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the victim’s wife at the time of committing the instant crime, there was an error of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. In the criminal trial proceedings conducted in the form of a citizen participatory trial introduced to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judiciary on the premise of judgment, collective opinion presented to the trial division on the recognition of facts is a recommended effect to assist the judge of the trial court in finding facts under the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the principle of court-oriented trials. If a jury participated in the whole process of fact-finding, such as examination of witness witness, and a verdict issued by unanimous opinion on the admission of evidence, such as credibility of witness statement, and fact-finding, is adopted as it is in conformity with the trial of the trial division, in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the principle of court-oriented trials, it is necessary to respect the judge of the court below's first instance on the admission of evidence and fact-finding conducted through such procedure, unless the defendant is fully and clearly opposed to him through new examination of evidence in the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do4550, Mar. 26, 2015).