The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

For the defendant.

1. The court below rendered a judgment of conviction on the part of the defendant's case and dismissed the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case for which the request for the attachment order was filed (However, ex officio, the probation order was issued after the execution of the sentence was completed), and as the only defendant appealed on the part of the defendant's case, there is no benefit of appeal on the part

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. for Specific Criminal Offenders, the part of the judgment below regarding the request for attachment order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to each of the facts charged under paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below in the misconception of facts [the charge that violates the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “rape-rape”)], the defendant has no sexual intercourse with the victim.

The Defendant has consistently denied sexual intercourse from the investigative agency to the trial of the party. (However, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s own intent to not cause secondary damage to the victim) Nevertheless, the lower court, without credibility, and expected to make an incorrect victim’s statement (the victim gets aware of sexual intercourse with the Defendant as if it was a reality) (the victim was a blue of having been a blue of sexual intercourse with the Defendant). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. On March 17, 2020, No. 2-A of the decision of the court below as the decision of the court below is examined ex officio.

with respect to paragraph (1).