The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not seem to have a knife a knife, but did not seem to have a knife a knife a knife a knife a knife a knife. The respective statements of the victim, his parents, E and D, which correspond to the point of special intimidation and assault, are in a hostile relationship with the Defendant between the victim and the victim’s parents, and each statement is exaggerated or distorted and is not credibility. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of special intimidation and assault solely on the grounds of the circumstances appearing in each statement, recording (Evidence No. 8 and No. 25) of the victim and his parents, and that the Defendant did not have a knife a knife.

In line with the point of rape, ① The statement of the victim is without credibility because the victim has a good appraisal against the defendant. ② The situation appearing in the recording CD and the recording book was intended by the victim who prepared the recording in advance, and the victim’s resistance is considerably colored. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the situation at the time is forced to have a sexual relationship.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of rape only with the victim's statement, recording CD, recording, etc. is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The decision is made ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In this Court, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment which changed the date and time of the offense in paragraph (1) to “ around July 28, 2018,” “ around July 21, 2018,” among the facts charged in the indictment, to “ around July 28, 2018,” and this Court changed the subject of adjudication by granting permission. As such, the concurrent offender, including the facts charged prior to the amendment, is heavy.