The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One seized steel bar (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, and ordered the Defendant to complete the program of treating sexual assault for 4 years, the number of seized evidence No. 1, and 120 hours.

B. The Defendant appealed against the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts and illegality in sentencing, and the lower court rejected all the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts prior to the remanding of the case, while reversed the lower judgment on the grounds that the sentencing of the lower court was somewhat inappropriate, and ordered the Defendant to complete an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for a period of 3 years, the number of seized evidence No. 1, and 120 hours.

(c)

On September 24, 2015, the court of final appeal rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to “a person who committed a crime under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles with a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles” in Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016) that was applied before the Constitutional Court rendered a judgment of unconstitutionality as to “a person who committed a crime under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act with a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles,” and thereby, the legal provision was retroactively invalidated pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the judgment of unconstitutionality was reversed on the grounds that the judgment of unconstitutionality cannot be affirmed ex officio and remanded to the court of final appeal.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit any indecent act by force against the victim I, or by force against the victim N, as stated in this part of the facts constituting a crime (as indicated in the lower judgment, with regard to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the same Article).

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the reasons for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor will examine the reasons for the appeal ex officio, and the prosecutor will raise objection at the trial.