A. The Defendant did not commit an act of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, following D (tentative name, leisure, age 23).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the sole basis of the statement of D without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won, order to complete a program, and order to restrict employment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. (1) When considering the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined by the court below, or unless there are exceptional circumstances where it is clearly deemed that maintaining the original court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness in the original instance is unreasonable, the appellate court should not reverse the lower court’s decision on the grounds that the lower court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness in the original instance is different from the appellate court’s decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012) solely on the grounds that the lower court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by the witness in the original instance is different from the appellate court’s decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

(b).