The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning the crime of mistake) did not enter the victim’s residence by opening the door around 17:30 on April 18, 2017, and did not infringe on the victim’s residence through windows. Moreover, the Defendant is obviously evident that there was outside of the victim’s residence until around 03:37 of the same month, and there was no fact of having entered the victim’s residence on the 19th day of the same month and there was no fact of intrusion on the victim’s residence through windows around 03:30 of the same month. (2) The imprisonment (one year) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the erroneous determination of facts (not guilty in the grounds of appeal) and the background leading up to the instant report, consistency of the victim’s statement, objective evidence consistent with the victim’s statement, inconsistency in the Defendant’s assertion, etc., the facts of rape after entering the Defendant’s residence are acknowledged. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal due to changes in indictment.

With respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes from among the facts charged in the instant case at the trial, a prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the term " around 03:30 on April 19, 2017" to " around 03:50 on April 19, 2017," and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of intrusion in relation to this part of the facts charged and rendered a single sentence by treating the remaining conviction as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower court’s judgment was no longer maintained in its entirety.

However, the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts still exists to the extent that they judge the modified charges, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.