The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Seized evidence 1 gallon (on a gallon, G).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Each coerciond Defendant 1’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, “2016 Gohap 1113”), and there was no fact of repeatedly committing assault and intimidation against the Defendant’s victim around April 25, 2016, which was the new text of the victim H.

The victim has voluntarily made the above door and has not forced the defendant to do so.

B) The fact that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim around May 11, 2016 is the fact that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim around May 11, 2016.

However, the above lecture was conducted after agreement with the victim, and the defendant did not assault or threaten the victim for the sexual intercourse of the above mouth.

C) Although the Defendant received money from the victim test from May 2, 2016 to May 13, 2016, the Defendant merely received money from the victim’s voluntary transfer of the money, and there is no fact that the Defendant received money by threatening the Defendant.

D) The point of coercion (the criminal facts of the lower judgment stated in paragraph 3 of 2016 Gohap 1165) was coerciond by the Defendant by repeatedly threatening the Defendant to take a photograph and video image.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s judgment based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, etc., as to each of the following charges (related to paragraph (1) A of the facts stated in the lower judgment). In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court: (a) the Defendant: (b) demanded that the frighted victim drinking by continuous assault and coercive attitudes be fright up to three times; (c) the victim, who caused the Defendant’s refusal of the demand, caused the injury, such as assault, which may occur when he/she took place, to the victim.