The guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.

seizure.

1. On August 2016, the lower court rendered a judgment of innocence with respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Article 1-f. of the facts charged) among the part of the case of the Defendant, and rendered a judgment of conviction with respect to each of the remaining facts charged, and rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request with respect to the part regarding the request for attachment order and the request for protective observation order, and only the Defendant appealed against this.

Therefore, the part of the defendant's acquittal in the part of the case is separated and confirmed as it is, and the part of the defendant's case is excluded from the scope of adjudication notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection Monitoring of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, Etc., since there is no interest in appeal with respect to the part of the case for attachment order and the case for protection observation order. Therefore, the scope of adjudication of this court

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles do not have a sexual relationship with the victim E, who is a blicker, at the time and place specified in the crime No. 1-A as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was a sexual relationship with the victim at each time and place specified in the crime No. 1-B through f of the judgment of the court below, but this was by an agreement with the victim.

In addition, although the defendant photographs the body and body of the victim at each location listed in the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below, the date and time were not around Nov. 1, 2014, but around July 2015 and obtained prior consent of the victim.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found all of the above facts guilty on the grounds of the victim’s statement without credibility.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (10 years of imprisonment, confiscation, and 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The decision on the grounds for ex officio appeal is ex officio prior to the judgment.