A. As to the part of the judgment below not guilty of the fact-misunderstanding, the victim took several times by drinking from the defendant in an I restaurant.

As the above statements are consistent and specific, the defendant can be found to have abused the victim, such as this part of the facts charged, in accordance with the above statements.

However, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution, two years of protection observation, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order in October) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court: (a) the victim was assaulted by the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the court; and (b) operated by the victim again.

E They were assaulted and returned to E

consistently stated and consistent, but in the I restaurant;

J’s statement that “Ar must hear any sound suitable for the Defendant,” and that it is somewhat difficult to believe the content itself, considering the distance between the toilet and the restaurant table, etc., the sound that the victim was assaulted in the restaurant table in the toilet in which the door was locked.

F and J have taken place to F and J

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the victim suffered serious injury if the victim was assaulted as stated, but there was no special opinion on the result of chest CT photographing in the new wall, and the victim was under the influence of alcohol at the time, so it is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement on this part cannot be deemed as it is, and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged, and that this part of the facts charged is acquitted.

l.p. g., p.