The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant shall be treated for 40 hours of sexual assault.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to rape), the Defendant attempted to fluorize the part of the victim, and did not commit rape by assault or intimidation. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the statement of the victim without credibility, etc. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of unfair sentencing. 2) The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the injury caused by rape), although the injured party’s wife caused by the sexual assault of this case constitutes the injury caused by rape, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application with the court for amendments to a bill of amendment with regard to the injury resulting from rape among the facts charged in the instant case, stating that “the victim suffered injury, such as saves, tensions, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks,” “The victim suffered injury, such as knee, knee, knee, and saves, by making the victim’s timber, shoulder, knee, and saves, etc., which require treatment for about two weeks, and the victim suffered injury, such as knee, knee, and tension.” Since this Court permitted this, the judgment below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the allegation of misunderstanding of facts, and the lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, stated the relevant legal doctrine, and, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by it