The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

With respect to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. among the facts charged in this case, the charge of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the charge concerning the omission of judgment, is the purport that the defendant allowed the victim to drink alcohol or water by a stroke-m (hereinafter referred to as "stroke-m"), which contains the ingredients of stroke-m.

Of the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of only the part of the charges that the Defendant had the victim drinked alcohol, and was unlawful by omitting judgment as to whether the Defendant flowed water through a stroke-m.

The defendant who did not use a stroke m does not have the stroke m or stroke m.

The defendant's drinking to the victim is true that the victim dices the alcohol, but it is practically impossible for the defendant to see the victim's strokem in light of the fact that the victim dices the alcohol by drinking the alcohol, that it is a place where the general public dices the alcohol and dance, and that it is open to the public, and that it is possible for the general public to drink the alcohol.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of the victim’s statement without credibility, etc., which found the Defendant guilty.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim’s explicit consent.

This can also be seen through the fact that the victim talked about the defendant's hand at the time of the sex relationship of this case or about the use of the mixed sea.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor of the amendment to indictment of ex officio judgment has reached the trial of this case.