The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

For a period of 10 years, the information on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not rape the victim. 2) The Defendant did not forcibly take the victim’s things.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (15 years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the establishment of robbery and rape in the facts charged of this case, with regard to robbery accompanied by rape, the judgment of the court below, first of all, as to the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) as to the Defendant’s assertion that: (b) the Defendant did not assault the victim and force the victim to engage in similar intercourse with the victim; and (c) did not rape with the victim; (d) the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground as stated in its reasoning; (b) but (c) based on the evidence in its holding, it found the Defendant guilty of robbery and rape against the Defendant; and (d) based on the arguments and records in the instant case, the following circumstances can be examined. (a) The victim, who was employed by the Defendant, had the intention to engage in prostitution from the beginning of the instant judgment while delivering juice to the Defendant’s office in accordance with the Defendant’s order, had been tried to engage in prostitution; and (d) the Defendant’s sexual traffic from the room in the actual judgment; and (e) the victim was present at the court below and the court at the bar level of KRW 200,0,0,0,0,00.

On the other hand, the victim made a false statement that he did not engage in sexual traffic until the first three times in the police investigation process following the crime of this case, and recognized that he did not deliver sexual traffic to the telecom with the intent to engage in sexual traffic by reversing this four times from the next fourth statement.

However, the victim entered the Moel room at that time, and the new launch was placed adjacent to the bees, not the entrance, and the defendant was almost out of it.