The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts concerning rape and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The victim stated that the defendant exceeded all the clothes of the victim who was locked by the defendant and put them into force. However, the victim's statement is not reliable when considering the circumstances leading up to the establishment of a sexual relationship, the actions of the victim before and after the sexual intercourse, etc.

3) Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of rape among the facts charged in the instant case on the sole basis of the victim’s statement, even though it was true that the Defendant established a sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim. However, the lower court’s judgment erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the completion of sexual assault treatment programs for two years and six months, and forty hours) is too unreasonable. 2. On December 28, 2017, the prosecutor applied for amendment of the indictment with the date of the crime in the instant case No. 2018Gahap95, among the lower judgment, to “the new wall around December 28, 2017” from “the new wall around December 28, 2017,” and this court was subject to the said judgment by permitting it (the foregoing amendment of the indictment is subject to the same crime, maintaining the crime of rape as indicated in the judgment below, making it possible to temporarily change the facts of the relevant person on the date and time, and without having the social relationship between the Defendant and the victim.