1. The part of the judgment below on the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

40 hours per the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant and the claimant for the protective observation order (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) and the Defendant misleads the Defendant of the fact or misunderstanding of the legal principles (Rape) on the date and time and place stated in this part of the facts charged; (b) there was a fighting between the victimized party and the married couple; (c) but (d) the Defendant was immediately

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty based on the statements of the victim without consistency is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (five years of imprisonment, 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

The sentence sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing of the prosecutor is too unfortunate and unfair.

It is unfair that the court below exempted the disclosure and notification order of personal information, although there are no special circumstances that may not disclose or notify the personal information of the defendant who was unjustly exempted from disclosure disclosure order.

It is unfair that the court below dismissed the defendant's request for the protective observation order, despite the risk of recidivism.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by taking into account the victim’s statement with credibility consistent with the facts charged and the low persuasive power of the Defendant’

In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court of this court is not only in compliance with the rationality, logic, contradiction, or rule of experience of the content itself, but also in compliance with the evidence or third party's statement, but also in the open court after being sworn before a judge.