The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by a prosecutor, such as misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the charges of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special robbery) that the Defendant raped the victim at the time of committing the crime of injury by robbery are sufficiently recognized. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment not guilty of this part of the charges is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (eight years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order for sexual assault treatment program, 10 years of order for employment restriction) is so unreasonable that it is too

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 8 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 10 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proven beyond reasonable doubt, in light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the prosecutor in the item [the acquitted part], on the ground that it is difficult to view that this part of the facts charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In the circumstances stated by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records (the result of each fact-finding with respect to the Gwangju Science Investigation Institute of the court below, the Gwangju Science Investigation Institute of the Republic of Korea, the U.S. Research Institute of U.D.), namely, the victim's quality inside the body of the victim, and the Y-STR DNA was detected, but the Defendant's Y-TR DNA was detected, but the sperm training reaction also appeared in the part other than the fixed amount, so the fixed amount training reaction does not mean that the Defendant's fixed amount training reaction directly exists in the victim's quality contents, etc., so the above fixed amount training reaction and the Defendant's DNA detection result directly proves the Defendant's rape.