The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the absence of the fact that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim, the lower court convicted the Defendant of rape solely based on the victim’s statement, and erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete the course) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The judgment of the court below based on an erroneous determination of facts as to the embezzlement, which found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s act of transferring the account to the fraud organization of Bosing and arbitrarily withdrawing the money deposited by Bosing is an act ex post facto ex post facto act, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of embezzlement. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable because the punishment of the court below is too unreasonable.

3 Notwithstanding the case requiring the Defendant’s order to disclose personal information when considering the details of the unfair Defendant’s crime of exemption from disclosure order, possibility of recidivism, etc., the lower court’s judgment that the Defendant constitutes a special reason to exempt the Defendant from disclosure order on the sole ground that there was no record of sexual crime.

2. Determination

A. 1) The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts against the defendant and his defense counsel are consistent with the fact that the defendant was living the victim in the dwelling of the defendant by burning the victim on the vehicle. However, the defendant suffered from the difficulty of the defendant, and the victim was dead, and the defendant did not have a sexual relationship with the victim. In particular, the prosecutor's examination of the victim showed that the defendant's sperm or DNA was not detected, and there was no discovery of the victim's body, etc. discovered in the event of an anti-stigious intercourse, and thus, the statement of the victim is not credibility. 2) The court below's judgment is legitimate.