The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Seized evidence shall be confiscated. Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case and sentenced the Defendant to four years of imprisonment with prison labor, confiscation and additional collection, order of provisional payment for the above additional collection, and order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

B. The Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts (as to injury to rape) and unfair sentencing, but the judgment prior to remand rejected all of the Defendant’s allegation and dismissed the appeal.

(c)

Article 45(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Revised Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”) amended by Act No. 14412, Dec. 20, 2016, the Defendant filed a final appeal against the judgment prior to remand on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing, and the final appeal court reversed and remanded the judgment by deeming that it is unnecessary to determine whether the period of personal information registration against the Defendant is unfair by the sentence of the lower judgment on the grounds that it is deemed that it is unfair to determine the period prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 45(1) of the same Act by the sentence of the lower judgment, and thus, it is unnecessary to determine whether the period of personal information registration for the Defendant is the longer short-term period of registration during each of the following periods.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (the part concerning rape injury in the judgment of the court below) that the defendant caused the victim to take a scopon to scopon and drinking the scopon with the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below is merely for the purpose of sexual intercourse with the victim under an agreement with the victim by taking advantage of the scopic state following the scopon medication, not for the purpose of rape.

In addition, the defendant's act does not constitute "a assault to the extent that it may cause the victim to resist himself/herself," which constitutes a requirement for the establishment of the crime of rape.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending this part.