The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed in a similar rape by taking advantage of the victim’s potential to resist, and the crime cannot be deemed to be less than that of the crime in light of the background, content, means, and method of the crime.

The victim who suffered the damage of this case from the Defendant initially under the influence of alcohol at the drinking place with the Defendant seems to have suffered a considerable sexual humiliation and mental impulse.

In light of these circumstances, it is inevitable for the defendant to be punished corresponding to the responsibility for the crime.

However, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and runs counter-infinitely his mistake.

The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, erroneously interpreted the intent of the victim to commit the instant crime. The Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime, and immediately ceased to commit the instant crime by disclosing the victim’s intention of refusal.

In the appellate trial, the defendant paid a reasonable amount to the victim and agreed with the victim.

Accordingly, the victim submitted a written agreement to the effect that the punishment of the defendant is not more than the punishment of the defendant in the trial.

In other words, the defendant does not repeat again, and the parent and arbitr of the defendant also leads the defendant, and the defendant's wife is desired.

The defendant is an initial criminal who has no past record of criminal punishment.

These points should be considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the various factors of sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, and the range of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court's sentencing committee, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3. The appeal by the defendant is in conclusion.