The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts is a fact that there was a brupt of the victim D (n, 20 years of age) who intends to go to his house and she was moving to a nearby alley. However, there was no fact that the victim was brupted by cutting down the victim’s hand with his/her arms and cutting down the victim with his/her arms or divided the victim into two arms, and there was no credibility of the victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this part.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of assault among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in fact.

B) Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by Enforcement Decree of Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) and the fact that the Defendant entered the victim’s house against the victim’s will is recognized. However, there is no fact that the Defendant used force by putting the victim on the beds, preventing the victim from taking advantage of his body or getting the victim from taking advantage of his/her body, or preventing the victim from taking advantage of his/her body, or by preventing the victim from taking advantage of his/her cell phone or leaving the victim out of the room, and there is no fact that the victim would be suffering or put the victim into the victim’s entrance, and there is no credibility of the victim’s statement that conforms to the facts charged in this part.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by force on residence intrusion) and the detention in the indictment of this case is erroneous.

C) The Defendant attempted to commit an attempted crime did not intend to withdraw 4 million won from the injured party by threatening the injured party in the same manner as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and there was only a fact that the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant was 4 million won from the injured party who asked the injured party about the amount of the pre-paid fee to receive a daily strike in order to do so.

The victim's statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is not reliable.