The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.) relating to rape (Rape, etc.) committed in the second of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not pose a threat to the victim at the time of the second rape, and even according to the victim’s statement, rape No. 2 (hereinafter “Rape 1”) was terminated after the Defendant and the victim had knife the kitchen while drinking the kitchen and drinking water together with the kitchen, then knife the knife on the part of the victim after the Defendant threatened the victim with the knife and knife the knife with the knife and knife the knife, and there was a second rape after a considerable time. Thus, there was no causal relationship between the act of intimidation in the knife and the act of rape No. 2.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of rape in spite of the fact that it cannot be viewed as a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes with respect to the second rape.

Furthermore, since the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes is not applicable to the defendant's act, the order to complete a program or to disclose and notify information is unlawful.

B. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant, in addition to the depression, was in a state of mental suffering suffering from a mental disorder, having a large amount of alcoholic beverages more than that of a usual suit.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, 40 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, and 5 years of disclosure and notification of information) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the amendment of the indictment, the facts charged of the instant case prior to the amendment of the indictment, “the Defendant” was divorced on September 28, 2012 from the victim D (the age of 54) and on September 28, 2012, and was living together with Embro 116 Dong 403, the government-si, Embro-si, Madro 116 Dong 403, and was living in the same place on October 12, 2012.