A. In fact, there was no physical contact between the Defendant and the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the amount of KRW 3 million, the amount of KRW 200,000, and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 24 hours) against an unjust defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility based on the spirit of substantial direct deliberation, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted by the time the appellate trial ends, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009). 2) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. On this, the lower court directly summoned the victim as witness and directly summoned the victim and examined the victim, and then “each statement made by the victim of the lower court and the investigative agency is consistent and specific with the Defendant’s act, damage, perception and response, the situation before and after the crime, and otherwise, the credibility of the statement in light of the fact that the false statement is not visible, and the attitude of the statement in this court.

“In the light of the foregoing, the Defendant was convicted.”

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, we examine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake.

Comprehensively taking into account the circumstances presented by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: