A. There is no misunderstanding of facts that the Defendant made a sexual organ at the time of the instant case.

B. In light of the background of the instant case of unfair sentencing and the fact that the Defendant had no previous error, the lower court’s imprisonment with labor for four months is unreasonable.

2. According to the CCTV taken at the time of the instant case, according to the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) according to the CCTV taken by the Defendant at the time of the instant case, the fact that the Defendant committed an act identical to the facts stated in the lower court’s judgment is sufficiently recognized, in light of the following circumstances: (b) the residents at the instant site prepared a statement that the Defendant was sent back to the Dong Ne residents and made a statement to that effect; and (c) the residents at the investigation agency prepared a statement that the Defendant had made a sexual organ; and (d) the residents at that site made a statement with each

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing was imprisoned and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.