The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

For the defendant.

Therefore, the part of probation order case shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders as there is no benefit of appeal.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant’s sexual organ was not inserted in the victim’s sexual organ as at the time of the crime of mistake of facts (the part concerning robbery and rape), the crime of attempted robbery is only established in relation to this part.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes with mental disorder, the Defendant was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

3. Determination

A. As to the part of the assertion of mistake of facts, in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of conviction, the defendant’s interest should be determined even if there is suspicion of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014). In light of the record, the defendant continued to attempt not only to commit this part of the crime but also to insert his sexual organ into the victim’s sexual organ at the time of the crime until the court below and the court of the trial at the court of the trial, and it is recognized that the defendant’s sexual organ was replaced with the victim’s sexual organ because it was not proper, and in particular, because the police did not have properly discovered his sexual organ.