The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles: The defendant was trying to commit an indecent act or rape while the victim was trying to commit an indecent act or rape, but the victim was seriously refused to commit an indecent act in order to suppress his resistance, and the victim was committed in indecent act against the victim who has lost his mind.

In other words, the defendant's assault is a means to force the victim to commit an indecent act and is not a separate act from the forced indecent act.

According to the judgment of the court below, when the defendant intends to attract the injured person to the telecom, the injured person had the intention to commit the act, but when the injured person was forced to do so, the injured person had the intention to commit the act without the intention to commit the act, and the injured person had the intention to commit the act again after the injured person was written, which is a very commission judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of an indecent act among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

The sentence sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

It is unfair that the court below's improper exemption from disclosure or notification order is unfair to exempt the defendant from disclosure or notification order.

Judgment

As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court acquitted the prosecutor on this part of the charges on the ground that there was no proof of crime on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is reasonable and acceptable, and there were errors by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

It was true that the defendant attempted to attract the injured person to the telecom, but the defendant does so at the "D main point" with the injured person.