The judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts did not inflict any injury on the victim, such as Paragraph 2 of the facts charged in the lower judgment, and even if the body of the victim, which may cause sexual humiliation or sense of shame, was taken against his will, and did not have rape, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in this part by misapprehending the facts.

B. Both parties asserts that the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable because the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the court below’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application with this court for amendments to an amendment to an indictment with respect to the crime No. 1 of the court below's judgment as "injury", and the applicable legal provision "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act" changed "Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and this court permitted this and changed to be tried.

However, this part and the remaining criminal facts that the court below found guilty should be reversed in its entirety, since they are found guilty and one sentence should be imposed in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, the part concerning the crime No. 1 of the original judgment and the part concerning the acquittal of the reasons prosecuted for a single crime should be reversed together.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty, hereinafter the same shall apply) can not be maintained as it is.

However, there are reasons for such ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, this is considered.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of conviction in the appellate court’s trial process, and there is no clear error in the determination of the value of evidence for the first instance, or the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is contrary to logical and empirical rules.