The guilty part shall be reversed.

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

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty part in the judgment of the court below) is due to the fact that it was difficult for the victim to find out that the crime was committed while the victim was assaulted and detained for a considerable time. The credibility of the victim’s statement is low solely on the ground that the victim made an inaccurate statement in the part of the facts charged.

Considering that there is no room to see the fact that the defendant tried to rape by the victim's statement, etc., considering the fact that the defendant was living far away from the floor of the scene of the crime of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is erroneous.

2) Although misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below) constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, the crime of confinement in the judgment of the court below and the crime of attempted rape in this part constitutes an ordinary concurrence relationship.

Therefore, as long as it is found guilty of a crime under confinement, the court should pronounce innocence on the charge of attempted rape.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered not guilty of the charge of rape on the premise that the two parties are in a substantive concurrent relationship. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts was clearly erroneous in the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial in light of the contents of the first instance judgment in relation to the relevant legal doctrine, the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct deliberation, and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

In exceptional cases where there are special circumstances, it is not an exception.