Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the case against the defendant and the judgment of the court below are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant alleged that the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine are "misunderstanding of facts", some grounds for appeal are deemed to include misapprehension of the legal doctrine, so the Defendant’s determination is based on “misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine.”

1) With respect to paragraph 1-A (a) of the first instance judgment in the first instance judgment, the Defendant and the person requesting the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) sought prior understanding prior to the arrival of the victim E (a)’s chest, and the said victim did not refuse the said request. Therefore, the said victim’s implied consent was obtained.

2) With respect to paragraph 1-B (involuntary indecent act) of the first instance judgment, the Defendant did not demand the victim E to have sexual intercourse or to have the said victim’s chest.

3) With respect to paragraph 2 (the point of robbery) in the judgment of the first instance, there was no injury to the victim E.

4) With respect to Paragraph 5 (On Duty and Loss) of the first instance judgment, in light of the intensity of the collision at the time of the traffic accident, the damaged part of the vehicle, and the location where the injured party M was seated, there is no relation between the traffic accident and the injury the injured party complained of.

B. The sentence of the lower court (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 years, and 2 years: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant were sentenced respectively, and the defendant filed each appeal against the above judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to hold the two appeals together.

The judgment of the court below in the first and second instances is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances cannot be maintained as it is.

However, we reverse the above ex officio.