The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the defendant is merely an assaulting the victim in carbook in the process of disputing the victim's after-hand problem by the male problem of the victim, not an assaulting the victim to engage in a similar act, and there is no relation between the assault and the act of similarity.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misconception of facts.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) among the facts charged in this case to the following criminal facts. Since this court permitted this, the judgment below cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

The following are the background leading up to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape, etc.) acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

In the officetels where the victim is living, the defendant argued with the victim as a matter of after-sale of the victim's male, and had sexual intercourse with the victim by force as stated in the facts of crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, and thereafter, the victim was "in only before facing the victim," and the victim was "in only before facing the victim" against the victim.

In this regard, the defendant gets out of the victim, and around 2 to 3 minutes by Do newsletter is neighboring.