A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the facts charged (Provided, That the lower court found the Defendant guilty of larceny, which is an ancillary charge of embezzlement, and did not separately pronounced the Defendant not guilty in the disposition, and exempted the Defendant from an order to disclose personal information), and sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 80 hours.

B. A decision before remanding the case (1) The Defendant appealed each of the following grounds: (i) misunderstanding the facts about rape in the judgment of the court below; (ii) misunderstanding the facts about embezzlement in the judgment of the court below; (iii) misunderstanding the legal principles; (iv) misunderstanding the sentencing; and (v) unjust exemption from disclosure notification order.

2) Prior to remand, the trial rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the rape, and accepted the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the embezzlement, and reversed the lower judgment in its entirety without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal on the grounds that each of the facts charged of the embezzlement and the remaining crimes as indicated in the judgment of the lower court are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence, and ordered the Defendant to complete a six-year imprisonment and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 80 hours.

(c)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the defendant on the grounds of violation of the rules of evidence, etc. of the judgment of the court prior to remand. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant's claim of violation of the rules of evidence on the grounds that it is merely an error of choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. However, the judgment of the court prior to remand ex officio on the ground that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the rules of electronic financial transactions due to lending of access media, among the judgment of the court prior to remand. The above part and the remaining part are remanded.