The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

For a period of five years, information about the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the Victim F (a) (a) with a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Article 1 of the facts stated in the lower judgment). (b) The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse with the Victim F (a).

B) Each rape (crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the facts stated in the judgment below) committed a sexual intercourse with the victim on the part of the Defendant’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s own one’s one’s one’s one’s one

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3) Inasmuch as there are special circumstances to exempt the Defendant from disclosure disclosure notification order and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) from disclosure disclosure notification order, it is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to disclose information for a period of five years.

B. There is a risk of recommitting a sex offense against a defendant on the part of an attachment order case

Although it is difficult to see it, the court below's order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the part of the Defendant case, the Defendant asserted that the lower court did not have forced sexual intercourse with the victim to the effect that it is similar to the allegation of the above facts.

The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, found the fact that the Defendant, in light of the following circumstances, committed assaulting the victim and suppression of the victim’s resistance once, and committed rape once after the victim’s resistance, and even after the victim’s assaulting or intimidation, may be found to have been raped twice after the victim’s resistance was threatened.

The decision was determined.

(1) After committing the crime, the victim stated the first damage at the K Hospital Seaba Center, which was established to obtain a prescription for the contract with the defendant, and thereafter, corresponds to the facts charged to the investigation agency and the court below.