The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not have attempted to rape the victim. Defendant 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (in fact or misunderstanding of legal principles) (the defendant's house and the victim's house are located close, but the victim's house enter the alley, and the left side is located, and the entrance of a small door which is mixed with the iron is opened on the wall of the alley and the entrance is directly connected to the victim's house. The defendant's house is located at another place in the alley by the victim's house, and the defendant's house is located at another place in the alley, and the defendant's house passes through the alley door installed at the direction of the course and passes through a large bar door, and the house of the victim's house and the house of the defendant's house are clearly different, so it is unlikely to mislead the victim's house as the defendant's house.

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant had no under the influence of alcohol, was living near the victim's house, the victim was living alone, and the defendant assaulted and threatened the victim to rape, thereby inflicting an injury on the victim, it can be recognized that the defendant had the intention to intrude into the victim's house at the time of entering the victim's residence.

Even if the defendant did not have the awareness that he had invadedd the victim's residence at the time of entering the victim's residence, the crime of intrusion under the Criminal Act is the constituent element of the crime of intrusion into the human residence, and the crime of intrusion by omission is recognized as the form of intrusion, and the case where the defendant is found to have been aware of the intrusion against the will of the person holding the right to residence, which constitutes a case where the person who entered the other person's house by mistake does not have the right to house, even after he was aware of the fact that the person