The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant, after being exempted from water, had sexual intercourse with the victim.

However, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict of rape on the ground that there was no proof of crime, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, even if it is limited to the convicted part, the sentence of the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On May 29, 2017, at around 18:20 on May 29, 2017, the summary of the facts charged regarding rape is as follows: (a) the Defendant, within the Defendant’s passenger car, made the victim dilution 2 eggs of water exemption 2; (b) made the victim a coffee with water exemption dilution; and (c) made the victim rape once by inserting the sexual organ into the part of the victim who lost his mind due to water exemption.

2) The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged while sufficiently explaining the grounds for its determination.

In light of the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that this part of the facts charged is beyond reasonable doubt.

As such, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged in the prosecutor’s assertion that found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The judgment of the Defendant and the Prosecutor on the wrongful argument of sentencing is based on the following: (a) the Defendant allowed the Defendant to put the Defendant an exemption from the water containing the ingredients by the stroke m, a stroke drug; and (b) the nature of the crime in terms of the method and risk of the crime.

shall not be required to do so.

However, it is true that the defendant's mistake is divided in depth, that the defendant was the first offender without any previous conviction until he reaches 57 years of age, that the defendant was exempted from water and did not commit any additional crime except that the defendant allowed the victim to sleep, and that this court did not commit this crime.