A. When the Defendant committed an act identical to that written in the facts charged, it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional indecent act committed against the Defendant, even if the victim implicitly consented to the act of the Defendant, and even if the victim did not consent to the act, it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional act committed against the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The decision of the first instance court on the defendant's unfair sentencing (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program with imprisonment for one year and two months, and forty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, when the appellate court tried to re-examine the first instance court's decision after an ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the first instance court's decision was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence in the first instance.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is. Moreover, without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Meanwhile, although the probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge, it should be in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be sufficient to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. However, it does not require that all possible doubts be excluded, and it would be rejected by causing a suspicion that there is no reasonable ground to believe that there is probative value.