The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant's appeal is based on mistake of facts in the statement of reasons for appeal, and the defendant's defense counsel stated that at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant was detained at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant and the defense counsel explicitly withdrawn his argument about mistake of the above facts among the reasons for appeal on the first trial date, and the defendant and the defense counsel stated that the defendant's statement to the effect that the defendant was detained is not a mental or physical disorder, but a statement to the effect that it would be changed into consideration in sentencing, and that the sentencing would only be disputed for the reasons for appeal. The defendant's defense counsel

It does not seem that it does not appear.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 2 years and 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, along with the victim, who was the motive of the university, and was sexual intercourse with the victim who was taken by the Defendant’s motive behind the university. In light of the background and method of the crime, the age of the victim, and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc., the crime was not committed, and the victim suffered a considerable mental impulse and a sense of sexual humiliation along with the Defendant’s act was disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and against his mistake, in particular, when it comes to the first instance, agreed with the victim, received a letter from the injured party, and the defendant does not seem to have committed the crime of this case in a planned manner, and it is possible to take the drunk victim into account in the toilet.

The defendant seems to have reached the crime of this case by contingency, and the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal history, and the defendant is character and behavior in the future at the age of 26 years of age.