All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was not guilty of committing the instant crime, and the DNA evidence cannot be trusted.

2) The instant crime was committed by misapprehending the legal doctrine and the statute of limitations expired.

3) Even if all of the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is rejected.

(1) A victim was raped at the time and time of the judgment of the court below and reported on the same day, and at the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, he/she kept the quality of the victim at the time of committing the crime. However, on November 2015, he/she had the content of the above quality.

As a result of comparison search of the defendant's DNA recorded in the DNA identification data database managed by the NNA and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, both DNA were consistent with 13 STRer. Among Korean people, one person having the same gene type as the defendant is 1.45 x 1014 x 1014.

② Around 04:40 on May 14, 2004, the Defendant: (a) was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for five years, and the judgment became final and conclusive, as stated in the judgment of the lower court, on the grounds that the Defendant: (b) carried the Raber, which was a deadly weapon, and invaded into the second N or multi-sections room of the building in the Ma, Chungcheongnam-do; (c) took property by threatening the female employees; and (d) rape the female employees; (d) the time when the instant crime was committed is close to the time and the means and methods of the crime are similar.

③ Although the Defendant asserts that there was no memory to commit the instant crime, the fact that he was aware of the fact that he had been detained in an action against the 3rd century around the date of the instant crime was committed.