The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to Paragraph 1 of the crime in the judgment below) 1) The Defendant only carried the entrance part of the main disease in the vicinity of the buckbucks by the injured party, but did not put in the negative part.

This is December 21, 2017 that the victim had resided.

The apartment was not in B, but in December 22, 2017, the defendant was back to J House where the defendant was living. At the time, the defendant was able to ask the victim of the assault committed by the defendant, and the victim was found to have been in the vicinity of the bucks of the victim, while he was able to ask him to establish a relationship with H with the victim, and the defendant was not allowed to go out of the victim's panty because he was bucks of the victim.

The victim made a statement to the effect that the defendant was aware that the defendant was an apartment building B at the time of the occurrence of the case with the flagpole, if he was aware that he was the first apartment house B at the time of the occurrence of the case. In light of the above, the victim's statement that the defendant was able to have made a statement by mistake, if the defendant was to put the studal disease into the part of the victim, he suffered serious injury and did not have to receive hospital treatment. In light of the above, there is no credibility of the victim's statement that the defendant inserted the studal disease into the part of the victim.

2) As such, even if the Defendant did not introduce the victim’s sound book and had no intent to rape, it cannot be punished as a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape similar to residence) even if the crime of indecent act is separate from the crime of coercion.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and of legal doctrine, the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in paragraph (1) of the lower judgment, was the victim on December 21, 2017.