The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be four years of imprisonment.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (infringed part of a residence), the Defendant had the victim’s constructive consent to the victim’s entry into the victim’s residence.

Although the intention of entering a residence of the victim was not recognized as being contrary to the victim's intent, the judgment below which recognized the intrusion on the residence did not err by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant appealed at the Gwangju District Court on August 12, 2016 after having been sentenced to four years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement). However, this court was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal on January 26, 2017, and the defendant was ordered to dismiss the appeal by the Supreme Court, but the decision to dismiss the appeal was issued by the Supreme Court and confirmed on May 19, 2017.

Therefore, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the crime of this case, which became final and conclusive, are in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment should be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity with the case to be judged pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below was impossible

However, although the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

3. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of perjury in the appellate court’s trial process, and the first instance’s determination was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is inconsistent with logical and empirical rules.