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, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant had a sexual intercourse with the victim on the date of the crime of rape of this case. However, although the defendant did not have rape as stated in paragraph (3) of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the statement of the victim with no credibility. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the case is examined ex officio, and the prosecutor is the first-mentioned facts charged at the trial.

In the paragraph, an application for amendment to a bill of amendment was made to change "one million won" to " seven hundred thousand won", and since this court permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

3. The court below also argued that the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is identical to the above assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating in the "decision on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion about paragraph (3)". In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of the victim's statement is justified, and it does not seem that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the court below'

4. Although the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, there is a ground for ex officio reversal due to changes in indictment at the trial as seen earlier, without examining the defendant's unreasonable sentencing, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.