All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 200 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it found the Defendant guilty of rape even though the Defendant had sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced to the first and second original sentence (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for three years and orders to complete the course, the second sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The Defendant filed an appeal against the whole of the judgment below, and the appellate court decided to jointly examine each of the above appeals cases.

As long as the facts constituting the crime of each of the above judgment below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, they should be judged at the same time and sentenced to a single punishment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake as to the facts of the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court.

B. The Defendant asserted that the lower court’s mistake of the facts against the Defendant’s first instance judgment is identical to the grounds for appeal under this part of the first instance judgment, and the lower court rejected the said assertion on the following grounds: “Judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” under the title of “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel”

Examining the above judgment of the court below after closely comparing the records, it is justified and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, there is no ground for misunderstanding of the facts against the Defendant’s judgment of the first instance, but the judgment below is reversed ex officio. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the judgment of the lower court on the Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing.