A. The statement of the victim of mistake of facts is not reliable, and the Kakao Stockholm message sent by the defendant was sexual contact under the agreement, even if there was sexual contact, so the defendant himself/herself or the defendant sent on behalf of the defendant to prevent such sexual contact. Thus, both the victim's statement and the Kakao Stockholm message cannot be used as evidence of conviction.

The defendant, under the agreement with the victim, has drawn up the victim and delivered the chest, but there is no fact that he did not put the finger into the negative part of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Although the probative value of evidence in relation to the assertion of mistake of facts is left to the discretion of a judge, such judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to find a defendant guilty in a criminal trial is to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence recognized as having probative value is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The phrase “reasonable doubt” in this context refers to not all questions and correspondence, but to the reasonable doubt about the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts that is not necessary based on logical and empirical rules, and thus, it should be based on this sexual prosecution that should be established in relation to the fact-finding.