The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

For the defendant.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. On July 24, 2014, the Defendant and the applicant for reexamination (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment due to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (a collective indecent act, deadly weapon, etc.), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.), bodily injury, obstruction of performance of official duties, damage to property, assault, similar rape, intimidation, intimidation, and intimidation, and the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts (an assault against victim F, forceful indecent act against victim G), misapprehension of legal principles (an injury caused by similar rape), and unfair sentencing.

B. On October 22, 2014, the appellate court accepted the prosecutor’s factual misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and reversed the judgment of the lower court and sentenced the Defendant to a three-year imprisonment (hereinafter “determination subject to retrial”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 30, 2014.

(c)

After that, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial by this Court No. 2015 (No. 8). On December 17, 2015, this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial and became final and conclusive as it is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a punishment of imprisonment of three years and six months) is too unreasonable (the allegation of misunderstandings was withdrawn in the first instance court after the commencement of a retrial). B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant’s misunderstandings the facts, and misunderstanding the legal principles, which led to the Defendant’s crime of similar rape, causing injury to the victim Y, including multiple scambling, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, but this does not constitute injury to a crime of causing a similar rape.

There is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. An ex officio judgment prosecutor is guilty of facts constituting the crime of the judgment below which the court below rendered in the retrial proceedings.

The name of the crime in part of this paragraph.