The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the misunderstanding of the legal principles inflicted an injury on a victim in the course of rape committed by the Defendant’s rape, Article 14 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.) applies to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Assault Punishment Act”).

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake in depth, agreed with the victims, and committed contingent crimes, it is possible to reduce unexploited crimes under Article 25 (2) of the Criminal Code.

In addition, the crime scene of this case is adjacent to the road, and there is no wall or door that is boundaryed with the road, and it does not constitute the residence which is the object of the crime of intrusion.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 8(1) of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on mitigation of attempted rape, even if not only the person who committed the crime of rape by intrusion upon residence as prescribed in Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act but also committed the crime of intrusion upon residence, if the victim suffered the injury, the crime of rape is established. In the case of the attempted crime of intrusion upon residence under Article 8(1) of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act as prescribed in Article 14 of the Punishment of Sexual Violence Act, in other words, the case where the victim committed the crime of rape upon residence or attempted rape with the victim's intent to inflict the injury on the victim, and the victim committed the attempted rape with the victim (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1058, Apr. 24, 2008; 2013Do7138, Aug. 22, 2013).

(b) relating to housing intrusion;