The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking the victim’s statement without credibility into evidence. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) In light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim’s living intrusion and the motive for the victim’s house, etc., the Defendant’s act of entering the victim’s house cannot be punishable as a crime of intrusion upon residence, as it does not violate social norms.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete the course) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from an order to disclose personal information, which was unreasonably exempted from disclosure or notification order.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine 1) The Defendant asserted to the same effect as otherwise alleged in this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court, based on the statement of a reliable victim and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, fully recognizes the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim as stated in this part of the charges.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, (i) the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the victim’s house and the victim’s house; (ii) did not enter the victim’s house without the victim’s or a person living together (47 pages of the trial record).