The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant thought that he would have taken the victim’s mobile phone in mind of receiving medical expenses by defluence from the injured party, and did not have sexual intercourse with the victim or have taken away the property by suppressing the victim’s resistance from the beer balance.

Since it may bring a mobile phone after the completion of rape, it is difficult to regard it as a crime of special robbery.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (7 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where rape in a judgment of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles causes robbery after rape, and forcibly takes property of such female, not only the robbery but also the robbery may be established. However, in a case where robbery is committed during the course of the commission of rape, that is, during the course of the commission of rape, the robbery is immediately acquired at this time. Thus, when the commission of robbery is continued after the commission of rape in the future, the robbery constitutes robbery prescribed in Article 339 of the Criminal Act by constituting rape under Article 339 of the former Act. Article 5(2) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010) provides for special rape under Article 334 (Special Robbery) of the Criminal Act, barring special circumstances, where a person who committed a crime, such as robbery, including Article 297 (Rape) of the Criminal Act, continues to be punished after the completion of the commission of rape.