The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the past, the Defendant visited the victim's house by misunderstanding the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and the victim only fell out of the victim's house, and did not prevent the victim from suffering or left arms, and did not have any intention to rape.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine: (a) After considering the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges by deeming that the Defendant invadedd the victim’s residence for the purpose of rapeing the victim; (b) immediately after the instant case, the victim made a concrete and consistent statement on the situation at the time of the crime from the investigative agency to the court below; and (c) the victim’s her husband’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’

B. On the other hand, in the investigation stage, the defendant reversed the statement on the reason why he found the victim's house at the time of investigation, and in light of the defendant's specific behaviors, etc., the defendant seems to have taken the shower after completing the shower, and up to the time he went out of the bath, unauthorized intrusion upon the victim's residence at night to prevent the female from suffering and put his arms strongly against the victim's will cannot be viewed as an action of the person who has been deprived of his will normally, and the defendant shows an exceptional form in light of the empirical rule immediately after the case.