The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: In relation to the crime of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of unfair sentencing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the following facts in relation to the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (or quasi-Rape). The Defendant and victim B

(2) In light of the fact that there was a space between the parties having a friendly relationship with the victim, and the victim sent a letter letter to the defendant's house, even if the defendant entered the victim's residence, the court below determined that the defendant's residential intrusion could not be established with the consent of the victim. Although the defendant had only a part of the victim's clothes, the court below acknowledged that the defendant committed similar rape by reliance on the victim's statement without credibility despite the fact that the defendant inserted the victim's fingers, the court below found that the defendant committed similar rape by reliance on the victim's statement without credibility. (2) The court below did not order an additional investigation into the lack of credibility, and did not examine the evidence submitted by the investigation agency, and found the defendant guilty without examining the evidence submitted by the defendant. It erred by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (such as imprisonment with labor for three years) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment. The lower court determined that the part on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the written judgment, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion, and found the Defendant guilty of the charges of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (or quasi-rapes in prison). In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s admission to residence.