A. misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant agreed to have a sexual intercourse with the victim through “A”, “A smartphone-recording display method prior to the delivery of the victim,” and only established a sexual relationship with the victim, and there is no sexual intercourse with the victim against the victim’s will.

However, the court below should correct it because it found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case only with the statement of the victim without credibility.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The imprisonment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial is not likely to be a reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence recognized as having probative value is not allowed as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt about the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts beyond the facts requiring proof in accordance with logical and empirical rules, not including all questions and correspondences, and it is necessary to establish a reasonable reasoning in this theory regarding the finding of facts favorable to the defendant. Thus, it cannot be said that the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2015Do4165, Apr. 16, 2016).