A. Regarding the facts constituting a crime of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, the video and cash 20,000 won transmitted by the victim to the defendant is not by intimidation of the defendant where the defendant voluntarily sent the victim in return for resolving the issue related to the male-child relationship of the victim.

In addition, although the forfeited mobile phone (No. 1) is not a product provided for a crime, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the charge and forfeited the above mobile phone is erroneous in misconception of facts

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court of the first instance: (i) the victim made a statement to the effect that the victim delivered 20,000 won in cash and her own act of self-defense to the defendant by intimidation from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance; (ii) the victim made a detailed, consistent, and objective statement in compliance with the objective facts; and (iii) the victim made a proposal to additionally deliver 20,000 won after the victim made a sexual intercourse with the defendant in order to solve the problem with the male-child relationship; and (iv) the victim made a proposal to further deliver the her own act of self-defense to the victim; (v) the victim did not submit any materials to prove it; (v) the victim did not know the above proposal that the victim was 19 years old, merely because she did not know about it at the stage of the second instance trial; and (v) the defendant also requested the investigative agency to send money to the victim at the time of the crime.