The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the charge of a similar rape among the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not have abused or threatened E to the point of suppressing the resistance.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict on the above facts charged in reliance only on the testimony of E with low credibility, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it can be recognized that the Defendant committed similar rape by inserting the victim E’s reflection after suppressing the victim E’s resistance, such as the Defendant’s criminal facts in the instant similar rape case.

① The victim E is clearly and clearly stated in the investigative agency to the court of the lower court on the criminal facts of the similar rape of this case.

In addition, there is no special circumstance that the victim E makes a false statement against the defendant.

② Before the victim E was damaged by similar rape from the Defendant, the victim E had a greptive drinking with the Defendant, and during that process, the victim E continued to phone and prevented contact with other persons when the victim E was on the job, such as a toilet.

“The statement was made to the effect that “........”

According to the statement of this, the Defendant may verify the fact that the Defendant made a phone call to the victim E three times from January 1, 2017 to January 02:43, 2017, the time when the Defendant actually fested the victim E.

In other words, the monetary content also conforms to the above circumstances before the crime is committed by the victim E.

③ The instant case.