1. All the judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, among the judgment of the court of first instance), the Defendant did not have attempted to rape with the victim K at the time indicated in this part of the facts charged (the Defendant withdraws all of the allegation of mistake of facts and the allegation of mental or physical disorder as to the remaining part of the crime from the

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant under Articles 1 and 2 of the Unfair Economic Punishment Act (the first instance court’s sentence: the imprisonment of three years, the imprisonment of ten months, and the suspension of execution of two years) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below 1 and 2 on the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Articles 1 and 2 of the Criminal Act were sentenced to the judgment of the court below, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgment of the court below. This court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeal cases. Since each of the above judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. On November 201, 2012, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (i) intruded the Victim K (at around 08:10, the Defendant, through the gate opened at the 46-year-old house; and (ii) accessed the ward through the gate opened at the 46-year-old house; and (iii) accessed the body of K with the back of the k where she was viewed as a television in the scam of the dwelling space and viewed as a television by hand; and (iv) tried to rape with K by suppressing the resistance of K and scaming off with the door where K was put into the k. However, the Defendant tried to commit rape.