The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have any special assault and special robbery against the victim C, and there was no intention to force the Defendant.

Even if the defendant committed violence against knife

Even if it is not used as a means of taking property, it is not used as a means of taking property, and special robbery is not established.

2) The Defendant did not knife the knife the knife the knife with the victim’s special assault and special robbery against the victim G, and did not forcibly take the knife the property of the said victim.

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

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority (revision of indictment).

For the first time, a prosecutor has applied for the modification of an indictment with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (an illegal confinement with a collective deadly weapon, etc.) among the names of the crimes against the defendant. This provision applies to special confinement. Under Articles 3(1), 2(1)2, and 276(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 278 and 276(1) of the Criminal Act, the prosecutor applied for the modification of an indictment with respect to the modification to Article 278 and 276(1) of the Criminal Act. This Court permitted the modification to the subject of the adjudication.

Meanwhile, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged and the remaining facts charged by the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

Despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. In light of the circumstances acknowledged based on each evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined as to whether the Defendant committed a special assault against the victim C and a special robbery, and in view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant at the time used for the main use of the knife (18cc in length).