The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

For five years, the disclosure of the information on the accused.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) As to the crime of confinement, the Defendant only concealed the victim’s will with the victim, and did not have any intention to detain the victim. 2) As to the crime of rape, the Defendant attempted to have sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim, but did not have sexual intercourse, and even if there was a little dispute with the victim before having sexual intercourse with the victim, there was no assault or intimidation against the victim to the extent that it would make it impossible or considerably difficult for the victim to resist.

3) It was true that the Defendant taken photographs of the victim’s body body by a camera of a mobile phone camera with respect to the crime of taking photographs, such as a camera. However, the Defendant taken photographs with the victim’s consent. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one-year imprisonment is too unreasonable and unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio determination, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes was amended by Act No. 10567 on April 7, 2011, and Article 16 of the same Act was newly established. According to Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act, the aforementioned order to complete a program is applied from the person who first committed sexual crimes after October 8, 201, the enforcement date of the same Act.

However, among the facts charged in the instant case, each of the crimes listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment of the court below which the court below found the Defendant guilty is guilty, because the Defendant taken photographs of the victim against the victim’s will on October 7, 2011, prior to the enforcement of the said Act, and raped the victim, the Defendant may not be concurrently sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, and order

Nevertheless, the court below ordered the defendant to complete the program, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, there is also a reason.