A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

(b) the defendant;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (related to the judgment of the first instance court) only made a sexual intercourse under an agreement with the victim, and there was no assault or intimidation to the extent that it would make it considerably difficult at the time to resist the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant raped the victim on the grounds of the statement of the victim without credibility.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or assault or intimidation of rape, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing unfair (related to the judgment of the court of first and second instance) sentencing (related to the judgment of the court of second instance) of the court below is too unreasonable that the sentencing sentence against the defendant (one and a half years of imprisonment of the first instance court, and the completion of sexual assault treatment programs, and 80 hours of imprisonment of the second instance court, and six months of the second instance court) is too unreasonable

2. The judgment of the court below in the first and second instances regarding the defendant's ex officio judgment was rendered separately, and the defendant filed an appeal in entirety against the above judgment of the court below, and the court decided to hold the above two cases together.

Each crime of the judgment below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below 1 and 2 cannot be maintained as they are.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to a trial by the party. Thus, the following is examined.

3. Determination of the lower judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant argued similar to the lower court’s trial to the effect that “the Defendant had sexual intercourse under an agreement with the victim and did not have assault or intimidation at the time of sexual intercourse.”

In regard to this, the lower court, in light of the following circumstances, committed rape against the victim after the Defendant coercing the victim’s resistance.