The guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Two years of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance judgment convicts the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

The judgment of the court of first instance that did not recognize it in a state of mental disability is unlawful.

The sentencing of the judgment of the court of first instance (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the accused is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the judgment of the court below of the second instance (the defendant and the prosecutor) against the defendant is too heavy or unreasonable as the sentencing of the judgment of the court of second instance (the fine of five million won) is too heavy.

C. The sentencing of the judgment of the court of the third instance (the appeal of the defendant) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below against the defendant in the ex officio judgment and the scope of the judgment of the court below was rendered, and the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against this case. This court decided to hold concurrent hearings. Since each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the first and the second and third judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as they are.

Even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, mistake of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the argument of mental or physical disability is still subject to the judgment of this court,

The dismissal part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties because the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissed part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited

B. The Defendant asserts that the part concerning the determination of the mistake of the facts in the judgment of the court of first instance did not intrude into the victim’s residence against the victim’s will, as the grounds of appeal.

§ 1.