The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

Since the defendant entered the residence with the victim C at the time of misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal (around March 2016, entering the residence and rape) and entered the residence, the crime of intrusion on residence is not established.

In addition, the defendant only has sexual intercourses under the agreement with the victim and did not have rape by assaulting and threatening the victim, and various circumstances at the time of the crime and after the crime are supported by this.

Even if the existence of assault and intimidation, which is a requirement to constitute the crime of rape, was recognized, the crime of rape was committed since the Defendant’s sexual organ was not inserted in the victim’s sexual organ.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (the imprisonment of three years and six months and forty hours and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

An ex officio judgment prosecutor shall be a part of the facts charged in this case from 14th to 3th 10th 10th son of the judgment of the court below stated in the facts charged in the following (the part which was written in accordance with changes in the indictment in the trial of the party).

The judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain, as the same application was filed for changes in the bill of amendment, and this court permitted changes in the subject matter of the judgment.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

On March 15, 195, the crime of intrusion upon residence by the legal doctrine related to the occupation of residence at the end of March 2016 is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of the residence. If the act of entering the residence was committed despite the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act was committed despite the express or presumed intention of the resident or manager (see Supreme Court Decision 19