The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The court below dismissed the prosecutor's request for an observation order for the protection of the defendant while pronounced guilty on the part of the defendant's case, and only the defendant appealed.

Therefore, there is no benefit in appeal regarding the part of the judgment below regarding the claim for protection observation order among the judgment below, and thus, notwithstanding Articles 21-8 and 9(8) of the Act on Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part concerning the claim for protection observation order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the defendant

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the fact that the defendant entered the Enbnb 202 in which the victim was diving, is recognized as having sexual intercourse with the victim. However, the defendant listened to the speech that he was her due to his own negligence from a female who was her mother at the time of the instant case (hereinafter referred to as "unexploit female") and entered the said 202 by being mistakenly aware of the room in which the female was her, and thus, the crime of intrusion upon residence is not established.

In addition, the defendant did not have the intention to commit quasi-rape because he has a sexual intercourse with a female who was not victimized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (3 years and six months of imprisonment, and 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, including the defendant's confession statement, as to the assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles.

On the day of the incident of the accused, etc. confirmed by CCTV images, ① When the victim and the injured person met in a club, they enter the club as E in around 06:01 and calculated from the first floor, the male is out of the locked.