The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant did not make indecent act by compulsion of the victim D as stated in the facts charged, and did not inflict any injury upon the victim at the time of the bones of the said victim.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.).

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant invadedd the victim D’s residence at early September 2015 and forced indecent acts; (b) the said victim suffered bodily injury, such as a cage cage cage cages (6, 7, and 8 on the left side) which require approximately six weeks of treatment; (c) Articles 8(1) and 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 298 of the Criminal Act, along with Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, are stated in the

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a sentence on the premise that the basic crime of the above crime constitutes rape rather than indecent acts, rather than indecent acts, rather than the Article 298 of the Criminal Act, rather than Article 298 of the Act on the Punishment of Specific Crimes, Article 297 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime of rape was applied to the grounds for sentencing, not the type 5 (Indecent act by force, such as intrusion upon residence) but the type 6 (indecent act by force and special indecent act) concerning rape was applied, and that rape, which is the basic crime, takes into account the facts favorable to the attempted rape, constitutes a crime of rape.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the principle of bad faith.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of the Korean court, and will be examined below.

The confession in the investigation agency and the court of first instance of the defendant in the judgment of mistake of facts is different from the statement in the appellate court.