The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for four years from the date of the final judgment.

1. The court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the case of the accused case and the case of the attachment order, and there is no benefit of appeal as to the case of the attachment order, since only the accused appealed.

Therefore, Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, a legal fiction of appeal, does not apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2476, Dec. 14, 1982; 201Do6705, 201Do20, Aug. 25, 201); and an attachment order case against the Defendant is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant merely commits an indecent act against the victim, but did not rape as described in the facts charged.

B. In light of the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court determined that the Defendant could fully recognize the fact of rape of the victim, based on each of the circumstances in its judgment. In addition to the circumstances recognized by the lower court, the Defendant presented a somewhat passive answer to the police, such as: (a) in addition to the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, the victim appeared to have responded to the police only to the investigator’s question, “I would not see that I would have prevented him from getting out of the future; and (b) “I would like to put him out of the future, and put him out of the past,” and “I would like to go against him only if I would have come to go against him; and (c) I would like to make a statement about the crime after the Defendant’s statement.”