The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

According to the victim's statement in an investigation agency of mistake of facts, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charge that the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below was quasi-rapeed by Eul around 2011, but the court below acquitted the defendant on the charge.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

In light of the fact that the prosecutor’s criminal appellate trial has the nature of ex post facto trial and that the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, if the result of the appellate trial’s examination does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance court, such circumstance alone does not lead to an erroneous determination of facts in the first instance court’s judgment that lack of proof of crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016). The lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor based on the grounds stated in Articles 7 through 10 of the lower judgment was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim within the accommodation located in H around November 201.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no evidence newly submitted for the first time in the trial, and there is no circumstance to the extent that the court below can resolve the reasonable doubt caused by the court below.

Therefore, there is no error of misconception of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

Ex officio determination is by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018.