The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.

The Defendant appealed on the grounds that the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a five-year period for the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment was too heavy, and the Defendant appealed on the ground that there was a misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the initial reasons for appeal, but as examined below, the amendment of indictment was made in the trial, and the Defendant withdrawn the assertion of misunderstanding

In this regard, “Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.)” in the name of the crime in the indictment at the trial of the party shall be construed as “Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape in Residence)”. The applicable provisions pursuant thereto shall not be construed as “Article 8(1), 15, and 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 319(1) and Article 297 of the Criminal Act” in “Articles 15 and 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Articles 319(1) and 297 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 9 through 11 of the facts charged shall not be construed as “influently against the victim” and the victim shall not be subject to the victim’s injury, such as tension and tension for two weeks in the process.

The phrase “to the contrary,” and the phrase “to the contrary, to prevent the resistance.”

“On the other hand, the Defendant, upon intrusion upon the victim’s residence, attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim by assault or threat, resulting in injury to the victim.

“In so doing, the Defendant attempted to have sexual intercourse with the victim by infringing upon the victim’s residence and by assault or intimidation.”

“A request for amendments to Bill of Indictment was made,” and the subject of the adjudication was changed following the court's permission.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the above unfair sentencing argument by the defendant, on the ground that there is an ex officio reversal.