A. Defendant (guilty in the judgment of the lower court) 1) did not commit sexual acts, such as intentionally exposing the chest of the victim or inserting the fingers of the victim’s sexual organ, etc. Even if the Defendant’s grandchildren contacted the victim’s chest, they did not have any intention to commit an indecent act against the Defendant. The victim’s statement concerning the facts charged in this case was embodied after the lapse of time, taking into account the fact that the victim’s statement was made with the lapse of time, and that the victim demanded the amount of agreement through the attorney’s office, it is unlikely to believe it as it is. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the credibility of the victim’s statement and convicted the victim of this part of the facts charged, and thus, found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (one year and eight months, etc.) on which the lower court sentenced unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. A victim of erroneous determination of facts (not guilty in the reasoning of the judgment in the original instance) 1) did not have symptoms, such as salivosis, before the Defendant was subjected to the instant quasi-Rape, and did not have received health insurance benefits during the two months prior to the occurrence of the instant case. However, the victim applied to salivists on the date of occurrence of the instant case, and salivists and salivists took medicine for about 10 days after being provided medical treatment several times, such as “patch infection, abnormal womb, and salivosis,” etc. Accordingly, the victim’s “patch infection, abnormal womb, and salivosis” constitutes injury under the Criminal Act, and proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the said injury and the Defendant’s quasi-Rape. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty only of quasi-Rape rape among the facts charged in the instant case and found the Defendant guilty of the injury resulting from quasi-Rape, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

(a) the defendant;