A. As stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have any suckbucks and clothes of the victim in the taxi, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and there was no fact that the victim went beyond the victim’s bridge after getting off the taxi.

Rather, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each charges on the sole basis of the victim’s statement without credibility, even though the Defendant suffered damage from the victim’s face twice, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspended sentence of two years, the community service order of 80 hours, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s mistake of facts was identical to this part of the lower judgment.

In full view of the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and the following circumstances revealed by the same evidence, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant, since the defendant is sufficiently recognized that he met the physical parts of the victim's cell phone, such as bucks, etc., which the victim's refusal to take a seat on the cab, cut off the victim's cell phone, and cut off the victim's bridge that continues to take place at the cab, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

① From the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim met the Defendant’s own buckbucks in the taxi and panty.

In this day, the defendant and the defendant were physically vagabonds.