The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) As to the facts charged No. 3, the Defendant did not possess a short map at the time and place specified in paragraph (2) of the facts charged, and did not rape the victim. (2) As to the facts charged No. 3, the Defendant merely did the victim have opened a door and entered the victim’s house by making the door defective, and did not intrude the victim’s residence against the victim’s will.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two years and nine months of imprisonment, confiscation, and 40 hours’ order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is true that the victim has consistently maintained the statement that he/she was raped against his/her will from the investigative agency to the court below regarding paragraph (2) of the facts charged (the charge of special rape) and there is a suspicion of guilt in this part of the facts charged.

However, since the defendant and the victim maintained internal relations over a long period of time close to four years prior to the instant case and brought about sexual relations, two persons basically have mutual understanding on sexual relations, and therefore, as long as the victim does not clearly express his/her intention of refusal, it is highly likely that the defendant has agreed on sexual relations.

The defendant was aware of the fact that he assaulted the victim before entering the telecom with the victim, or that this was caused by the suspicion that the victim had met another male. At the time of the instant case, the victim entered the telecom with the defendant, and the victim left the telecom, had a child returning to his house, and returned back to the telecom with the defendant's home, and again had a sex relationship (hereinafter referred to as the "sex relationship"), and there is a high possibility that the defendant accepted this circumstance as a symbol indicating the self-recompetence of the sex relationship.

In addition, the victim is also the defendant in the court below's decision.