The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which did not render a dismissal judgment on this part of the facts charged even though the victim C had cancelled the complaint prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was that the Defendant, on April 7, 2009, 01:32 at the “F” point located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, left the victim C and her drinking together, and the victim was extremely deprived of consciousness under the influence of alcohol. In the event that the Defendant was her drinking, the Defendant was sexual intercourse with the victim by taking the victim on board the taxi in the room in the “Hel” room located in G while drinking the victim, she was placed on the part of the beds, and she was sexual intercourse with the victim at one time after he exceeded the clothes of the victim under the influence of alcohol.

B. Determination 1) This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Articles 299 and 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same) and can be prosecuted only upon a victim’s complaint pursuant to Article 306 of the former Criminal Act and Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 201).

According to the records, since the victim submitted to the court below a written agreement on January 31, 2018, which was prior to the pronouncement of interest after the prosecution of this case, stating that "the defendant was fully agreed upon and thus the punishment of the defendant is not to be imposed." Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the victim revoked the complaint against the defendant on January 31, 2018.

Therefore, the court below convicted of this part of the facts charged even though it should have dismissed the prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the application of the statutes on the judgment dismissing a public prosecution under Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3...