The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 13 years.

. Information on the Defendant.

1. As to the part of the defendant's case

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (i) - misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested) - Among the facts charged against the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “the defendant”), the crime of rape at the latest in 2009 is a crime subject to victim’s complaint, and the period of complaint is one year. As the victim filed a complaint after one year from the date on which he/she became aware of the offender, the crime of rape at the latest in 2009.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant against Do governor's sentence of unfair sentencing (15 years of imprisonment) is that the punishment is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor's appellate brief is too uneasible and unfair.

B. (1) Of the facts charged against the Defendant, Article 6 of the lower judgment on the charge of rape in late 2009

A. As to subparagraph 1 of Article 297 of the Criminal Act, the crime is a crime falling under Article 297 of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only upon a victim's complaint under Article 306 of the Criminal Act. Meanwhile, Article 19 of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof (amended by Act No. 9110, Jun. 13, 2008) and Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that no complaint shall be filed after the lapse of one year from the date on which the victim becomes aware of the crime, unless there are special circumstances.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the victim had been raped from the defendant who had been aware of before it in 2009 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and according to the records, the victim filed a complaint against the defendant around October 18, 201.

Therefore, the victim was aware of the offender at the latest in 2009, which was the day when the rape was committed, and the complaint of this case brought around around October 18, 201, which had been far more than one year thereafter, was brought after the lapse of the filing period.