The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the injured person is named as the defendant in a written statement (the 11th page of the evidence record) (the 11th page of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes). As to the developments leading up to the cartels, the defendant entered the first place before entering the cartels.

In light of the fact that “the victim is described,” the Defendant is not forced to move the victim into the telecom, which is the place where the crime of this case is committed.

In addition, in light of the statements made by the victim, the victim was already aware that he could have sexual intercourse in the telecom, and at the time of the case, the victim refused sexual intercourse with the defendant.

It is difficult to see, and only establish a sexual relationship with the defendant after having a single sexual relationship with the defendant.

After having sexual intercourses with the Defendant and the victim, J and K have been working at the victim's request, and after that, they had been working on the day of the case and the following day with the Defendant and the victim.

Even according to the statement of the victim, the defendant did not engage in any brupt behavior or speech.

In full view of the above circumstances, there is a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not have a sexual intercourse with the victim by force.

Even if the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim against the victim's will, the defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim.

In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant erred that the Defendant did not engage in any tangible and intangible force against the victim and was engaged in a sexual intercourse under an agreement.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of sexual intercourse by force.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (e.g., deceptive means against minors under the age of 13). This part of the judgment below is erroneous.