The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

The information on the accused shall be disclosed for three years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, the subject of the attachment order, the subject of the request for the probation order, the subject of the request for the probation order, the accused and the subject of the request for the attachment order, and the subject of the request for probation order (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) have attempted to engage in sexual intercourse under agreement with the victim B, and did not exercise intimidation or force against the victim B.

It cannot be deemed that the victim's resistance was remarkably difficult.

No insertion was made.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, etc.) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s sentence of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., g., e., e.

The ex officio judgment prosecutor requested the court to conduct a consolidated trial with the defendant's case when requesting the defendant to issue the attachment order and the probation order.

Accordingly, this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the defendant's case, the above attachment order case, and the probation order case.

The request for attachment order and the request for probation order shall be examined along with the defendant's case and sentenced simultaneously, so the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

However, even if the judgment of the court below has such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to adjudication of this court

The defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the original trial, in the judgment of the court below.

As to this, the lower court stated in the 6 to 8th page of the lower judgment, i.e., ① the Defendant, on the day of the instant case, through intimidation the victim as if he were aware of the victim’s pictures and personal information from the victim B, and invested in the telecom with the victim.