The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime in violation of the law by misunderstanding and misunderstanding the facts, did not have any intention to rape the victim while going beyond the victim who walked in the mountain, and did not have any intention to rape the victim. Although this could be inferred by the victim’s shoulder and kne’s reflection, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged with the Defendant solely based on reliable statements that were not consistent with the victim who was under influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and violating the law, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) According to the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles, since the defendant voluntarily ceased to commit rape against the victim, it is necessary to apply Article 26 of the Criminal Act on the attempted abandonment. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on attempted abandonment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is too uneasible to the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of violation of the rules of evidence and mistake of facts, the lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail in the item “judgment on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” as to the judgment. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there was no error of misapprehending the facts as pointed out by the Defendant or failing to err by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

Some of the statements made by the victim in the investigative agency and the court of original instance are different.