A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A. The Defendant did not commit a crime resulting from mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against confinement in the instant case and injury resulting from rape.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor changed the term “componment” and “the injury caused by rape” from among the names of the defendants in the trial of the case to “component confinement” and “an attempted rape”, and changed the applicable provisions of this Act from “Articles 276(1) and 301 and 297 of the Criminal Act” to “Articles 281(1), 276(1), 300, and 297 of the Criminal Act”, and applied for changes to the facts charged as stated below, and this court permitted this and changed to the subject of the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment below is no longer maintained.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles still has the meaning as a subject of the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified subject of the judgment, which will be examined below.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant did not have committed rape against the victim’s will, on the grounds that the Defendant, detained the victim against the victim’s will, or attempted to rape by assaulting the victim. Accordingly, the lower court accepted the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) based on the following reasons: (b) the victim’s specific and consistent statement on the circumstances and process of confinement and rape in the instant case; (c) CCTV images on the road taken at the time of the commission of the crime; and (d) the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant tried to detain and rape the victim as stated in the facts charged; and (b) the lower court did not accept

In addition to the reasons indicated by the lower court, which could have been known by the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court.