The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant and the respondent for attachment order

A. The facts charged in the instant case do not clearly and specifically state the date and time of the crime to the extent that it is possible to exercise the right of defense of the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. The statement of the victim, which is the direct evidence of the facts charged of the instant case, is not reliable in light of various circumstances, such as that the victim immediately after rape committed an act difficult to do so, that stated differently from the facts, that the date of the crime, etc. was differently from the facts, and that the victim could have been affected by the teacher who heard the facts of injury, and that there was no credibility in the statement of G to the effect that rape was committed by the victim. In short, the first instance court erred by finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the basis of the statement of the victim, etc., which was known to the victim and G victim at the time when

C. Even if the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim, the first instance court found the victim guilty of having committed assault or intimidation in the course of the crime of rape.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (six years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable. B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (a part of the case where a request for attachment order is filed) that the first instance court dismissed the request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device despite the risk of repeating sexual crimes, or misunderstanding of legal principles

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the indictment of this case is unlawful in the first instance court, claiming that this part of the grounds for appeal are the same. The first instance court is not more than 4 pages of the judgment.