All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In determining the facts, the Defendant: (a) reported that the victim E (the age of 21) who is a taxi passenger was under the influence of alcohol, and tried to confirm the victim’s intention and have sexual intercourse; (b) did not have any intent to engage in sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim’s state of refusal to resist; and (c) did not have any criminal intent to commit sexual intercourse; and (d) stolen the victim’s wallet within the taxi. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (e.g., abduction for profit), attempted quasi-rape, and the larceny charges was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, taking into account the circumstances, such as that

B. Considering the fact that the nature of the crime committed by the prosecutor by the Defendant is not good, the punishment of the first instance judgment is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court ex officio examined the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment on the ex officio determination, 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the case No. 2012, 697, and 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the case No. 2012, 394, respectively. The lower court, upon filing an appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor, decided to jointly examine the appeal cases concerning each of the above cases.

The first and second judgment against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence shall be imposed within the scope of a limited term of punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, however, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts against the first instance judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is examined.

According to the statement made by the victim at the investigation agency, the defendant who is a taxi driver is under the influence of alcohol by driving a taxi.