The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. A prosecutor 1) Although the victim stated in an investigative agency claiming a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that “the defendant threatened the defendant to rape, and her bucks and her her tum.” or even though the defendant stated that “the defendant's sexual organ contacted the victim’s her tum,” the court below determined that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby acquitted the defendant not guilty of attempted rape. 2) The sentence (eight months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below on the ground of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (unfair form of punishment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio judgment (revision of indictment) at the trial of the prosecution, the prosecutor maintained the previous facts charged (Provided, That the part of the facts charged which covers the victim's head with the blocks of the victim, shall be deleted) and the application of the applicable provisions of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Act No. 11162), Articles 319(1), 298, and 48(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows. The prosecutor applied for permission of modification of indictment with each addition of the facts charged in the indictment (as the prosecutor added the ancillary facts charged at the trial, the initial facts charged was the primary facts charged). This court permitted this.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial.

However, even if the judgment of the court below has such reasons for reversal of authority as above, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged 1) The Defendant is the victim E in the latter part of the 28 Dong B02 of the D Building 28 Dong Dong-si, Young-si, G around June 13, 2012, around 02:10.