The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The defendant is a sexual assault treatment program.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The injury suffered by the victim of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and “the injury caused by the misunderstanding of facts” and “the injury caused by the victim’s misunderstanding of facts” cannot be deemed as an injury because there is no medical certificate as to this, and there is no need for treatment other than the disinfection treatment. The “emergency mine infection” is mainly conducted without a professional medical examination, based on the victim’s appeal, and thus, cannot be deemed as an injury. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the “injury caused by rape” in the crime of injury by rape, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the injury by rape. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) declared against the Defendant

B. The prosecutor (unfair assertion)’s sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. First of all, a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant 1) on the indictment states that the Defendant suffered injury from “inception of air conditioners, acute brutitis, etc.” to the victim. Thus, it is evident that the prosecutor does not prosecute only the above injury but explicitly stated it as an example rather than a indictment. 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the victim showed symptoms of “conception disorder and walking disorder due to sexual pain” on April 21, 2013, which is the day following the date when the damage was caused (the doctor’s opinion, page 30 of the evidence record), and (B) the symptoms of “conception to the crut” as the symptoms of May 1, 2013.

5. Oct. 10, 2013 under medical examination and treatment (a medical doctor’s written opinion, evidence No. 34 pages), and after the occurrence of a disaster, he/she was diagnosed as “non-quality imprisony, etc.” and diagnosed as “non-quality imprisony, etc.” from May 10, 20

5. By the 13th day of the hospital treatment (the diagnosis document, No. 29 of the evidence record), the Catchosis was diagnosed on May 20, 2013 as “patch catitis,” and the urology continued to have been treated for 10 days (each diagnosis document, No. 46, 75 of the evidence record). This is the same.