The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.), heavy confinement, forced indecent act, and rape, and sentenced the Defendant to two years and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution. On the other hand, the Defendant appealed each of them on the grounds of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Prior to remand, the first instance court dismissed all the appeals filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and only the Defendant appealed.

(c)

Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which was enforced by Act No. 13718 on January 6, 2016, was deleted, and Article 258-2 (Special Bodily Injury) of the Criminal Act, which was enforced by Act No. 13719 on the same day, was newly established, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below that applied the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”), which was a corporation at the time of the act, for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Punishment of Violences”), and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be punished by aggravated punishment by applying the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ex officio.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged on the basis of the statement made by the victim without credibility, although he was found to have committed the instant crime by drinking the victim at the time of the instant crime, there was no fact that the victim was boomed with killing insects, and no fact was found to have committed rape and forced indecent act against the victim’s will.

2) The misunderstanding of the legal principle that the Defendant took the victim into the sculic sculpide.

This is also stipulated in Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Code.