The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) in light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment (three years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable (the Defendant, from the grounds of appeal to the meeting of the victim at any time). In so doing, the Defendant infringed upon the residence of the victim even at the time of the instant case, since he was frequently unfolded in the meeting

In addition, it was argued to the effect that the victim was not in a state of resistance, and that the victim was not in a state of resistance, but the above argument was withdrawn from the first trial date of the trial of the first instance, and that there was an argument that there was an undue dispute over sentencing on the grounds of appeal. The above argument, such as mistake of fact, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and even after examining it ex officio, there was an error of law by mistake of facts or by misapprehending legal principles as pointed out by the defendant in the judgment of the court below.

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the crime of this case was committed by intrusion upon the victim’s residence, which the Defendant had been aware of, and breathed, breathed into, the victim, and breathly committed similar rape. In light of the motive and method of the crime, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc., the commission of the crime of this case is bad in terms of the nature of the crime, and the fact that the victim might have caused considerable sense of sexual shame due to the crime of this case, and that the victim might have caused considerable sense of sexual humiliation.

On the other hand, when the defendant was in the trial for the first time, there is no history of the same sex offense, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and there is five family members who have to live in good faith as a taxi engineer for 23 years, and have five family members who should provide support including union mothers and children. In particular, when the victim came in the trial for the first time, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the victim is also the defendant.