The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

For the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the claimant for the observation order to be observed (hereinafter “Defendant”)

1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of quasi-rape, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, even though it was true that the Defendant attempted to have sexual intercourse victim E (title) by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the Defendant did not have a sexual organ due to the symptoms that occurred before drinking, and thus did not reach the maturity of quasi-rape

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a punishment of 4 years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) In light of the Defendant’s behavior attitude, crime nature, etc. regarding an order of disclosure disclosure, the disadvantage and side effect of the Defendant due to an order of disclosure disclosure cannot be less likely than the profit and preventive effect expected due to an order of disclosure disclosure. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from an order of disclosure of personal information.

3) Although the court below dismissed the defendant's request for an order to observe the protective observation, it is unreasonable to dismiss the prosecutor's request for an order to observe the protective observation.

2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of having sexual intercourse with the victim E is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

(1) The scene at the time the defendant commits quasi-rape.

G(tentative name) stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that the defendant directly appeared to have sexual intercourse with the victim E(G).