A. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, 2 years, 40 hours’ orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and 3 years’ employment restriction orders) are too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and unfair sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts in the fact that the Defendant intentionally acquitted the victim’s Handphone floor by making additional assault under the circumstance that the victim was aware that he had been in possession of his cell phone in his hand and thereby has diminished the victim’s Handphone floor, but the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the damage of property on July 10, 2018 among the facts charged in the instant case, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (based on imprisonment for 2 years, 40 hours, order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, and order to restrict employment for 3 years)

2. Determination

A. The first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous in the determination of the evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto and ex post facto determination, in the absence of a new objective reason that could affect the formation of documentary evidence in the trial process.

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, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: ① the victim stated in the investigative agency that the court of the lower court made a statement that it is not accurate memory that the Defendant caused the Handphones by his/her own hand, and ② according to the “suspect video CD”, the Defendant leads the victim outside of the lower court.