The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

The lower court within the scope of this Court’s judgment: (a) with respect to the conduct of similar rape among the facts charged of this case, the Defendant committed an act of similarity in succession with the rape under the single criminal intent to rape the victim.

Therefore, the above similarity act was found not guilty on the ground that the crime of rape was absorbed into the crime of rape and the crime of rape was not established separately, and the judgment of not guilty on the ground that the crime of rape was not established separately.

In this regard, only the Defendant appealed on the remainder of the judgment of the court below, excluding the part not guilty in the above reasons, and thus, the part not guilty was brought to the court of first instance, but was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties.

As such, (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991, etc.). As to this part, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed, and the scope of the judgment of the court below is limited to the guilty part of the defendant (the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, based on the conclusion, is limited to the guilty part of the court below (the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, which is based on the conclusion, is actually the only direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged for the reason of the party deliberation, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement is the same as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to prove that the

It is insufficient to view that there is no proof of crime.

Although different from that of the case, the appellate court did not re-determine the case. misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal, or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant was sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim at the time of the instant case, and did not exercise assault or intimidation, which is a requirement for the establishment of the victim of rape.

Therefore, the lower court found guilty of this part of the facts charged.