A. In fact, the Defendant, who was aware of the fact that the victim was the victim together with F, was holding the Man-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-k-k-k-kn-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances of the lower court’s detailed statement on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① stated that “F would have been aware of the fact that it would have been the same as the victim, at the time,” in the police call with the police, but this is merely merely a conjecture, and there is no specific circumstance to support it, and F also stated that “the Defendant is the same as the victim,” in the aforementioned telephone conversation.

The statement to the effect that “the Defendant did not speak” was stated to the effect that: (2) the Defendant was contacted with F’s phone calls and was in the instant site; (c) the victim stated to the effect that he was sexually challenged with the Defendant at the police station; and (d) F was assaulted by the victim while having been sexually challenged with the Defendant at the police station’s telephone conversations with the Defendant.

In full view of the fact that the defendant stated that it is difficult to prove that he had assaulted the victim to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about the fact that he had assaulted the victim with the intent to use by the defendant, and there is no illegality of misconception of the facts alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

B. Sentencing;