The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of attempted rape and of non-rapeing charges, even though the Defendant did not have attempted to rape the victim, is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

(1) On the other hand, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the injury caused by rape which the court below judged as not guilty on the grounds of the judgment of the court below, but changed the contents of the injury in the first instance trial as described in paragraph (2) and the facts charged were changed following the first application for changes in indictment. Thus, the prosecutor's ex officio determination of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles changed the contents of the injury caused by rape and the injury caused by misunderstanding of facts among the facts charged at the trial, and changed the contents of the injury caused by rape and the injury caused by misunderstanding of legal principles into the previous "after the 12 weeks pressure pressure for treatment", and the first instance court applied for changes to the contents of the injury caused by rape and the injury caused by misunderstanding of legal principles.

In other words, the prosecutor applied for the second amendment of the indictment with the purport of adding "a person who attempted rape" to the facts charged of the injury resulting from rape and the name of the crime alternatively, "Article 300 and Article 297 of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions of the Act, and "a person who attempted rape but failed to achieve the intent of the victim" to the facts charged, and the trial allowed the second amendment of the indictment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained according to changes in the bill of amendment in the trial.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to a trial at the court, and this is examined below.