The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the “sexual intercourse by force,” which is the facts charged prior to the instant amendment, on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

B. The prosecutor added “Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act” to the applicable provisions of the Act in the trial prior to remand, and subsequently applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that “the defendant has sexual intercourse with the victim by fraudulent means” as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below. The prosecutor permitted the amendment of the indictment prior to remand.

C. In the crime of sexual intercourse through a deceptive scheme on June 11, 2015, prior to remand, the court held that the judgment of the court below was reversed by recognizing that the act of sexual intercourse does not constitute a fraudulent scheme under the Criminal Act, and that the defendant's act of sexual intercourse does not constitute an integral relation to the act of sexual intercourse in accordance with the Supreme Court Decision 201Do5074 Decided December 24, 2001 (hereinafter "previous case") stating that "the crime of sexual intercourse by a deceptive scheme was committed to achieve the purpose of sexual intercourse by taking advantage of such in-depth state of the other party that causes mistake, mistake, and land to the other party for the purpose of sexual intercourse."

For this reason, the prosecutor appealed on the ground of the misunderstanding of legal principles.

On August 27, 2020, the Supreme Court has changed the meaning of deceptive scheme with regard to the crime of sexual intercourse through deceptive scheme on August 27, 2020 to the extent that it is inconsistent with the previous precedents.