The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

For a period of three years, the registered information about the defendant.

The gist of the grounds for appeal was found to be erroneous (related to the part not guilty in the reasoning of the judgment below) of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (related to the larceny part among the crimes committed on August 28, 2004) and the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (related to the larceny part of the crime committed on August 28, 204).

Since the defendant made a concrete statement on the location of the wall and the cash that was contained in the wall while making a statement, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant stolen 20,000 won in cash incurred in the wall of the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the larceny charges. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In full view of the following: (a) the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (related to the crime committed on July 18, 2010, the part concerning quasi-rape into residence) stated that the victim consistently from the police investigation to the court of the court below that “it was naturally unrecognized that panty was kept in a panty and that panty was kept in a panty; (b) the victim’s house floor was collected nine conspiracys from the victim’s house floor after the crime, and two of them were revealed to be the Defendant’s conspiracy, such as the charge concerning quasi-rape, can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the charges of quasi-rape, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the sentence imposed by the court below (five years of imprisonment and three years of disclosure and notification of personal information) is too uneasible and unfair.

In light of various sentencing conditions in this case, the above sentence sentenced by the court below is too vague.