The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for fourteen years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On September 1, 2017, a statement of reasons for appeal prepared by the Defendant (as indicated in the lower judgment, Articles 2 through 5 of the Criminal Act) appears to have asserted that the grounds for appeal include “the violation of the Constitution, laws, orders, or rules, or the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment,” as the grounds for appeal. However, the Defendant and the defense counsel thereafter asserted that “the mistake of facts and the misappropriation of sentencing” as the grounds for appeal on September 20, 2017 at the first trial date (as indicated in the lower judgment, September 20, 2017).

The defendant does not commit rape or quasi-rape the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty on the basis of the statements made by the victim with no credibility. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (14 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal in the instant case, and the facts stated in the indictment in the instant case, “Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof (Rape, etc. of Minors under the age of 13),” and “Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof (Rape, etc. of Minors under the age of 13)” in the applicable legal provisions, the prosecutor again stated “any amendment to the indictment” in Articles 7(2) and 8-2(3) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (amended by Act No. 9932, Jan. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 298 of the Criminal Act in the name of the crime in this case as stated in the indictment in the instant case. As such, the court again stated “any amendment to the indictment” in this case’s Article 8-2(5) and (3) and Article 298 of the Criminal Act.