A. The direct evidence proving the facts charged in this case of mistake is the only evidence of the victim's statement. The victim's statement is not consistent and is false or exaggerated, and the defendant is in a divorce lawsuit with the victim's children, and there is no credibility in light of the fact that the defendant is in a divorce lawsuit. The court's statement in the K, E, J, and L is not reliable in light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim. Accordingly, the facts charged in this case should be pronounced not guilty because there is no proof of the crime.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 2,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged in this case on the ground that, in light of the evidence of the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (the evidence of the witness H and I’s respective legal statements in the lower court are inconsistent with each other in some three parts, but the remaining parts are consistent with each other, and the memory may be scarcityd due to the passage of time, etc. In addition, the victim’s statement appears to have been reliable. In addition, considering the fact that the victim’s statement appears to be not consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court, the victim’s old age, the victim appears to have made a little exaggeration statement, the victim appears to be consistent with the victim’s statement in the process of assault, etc., and that there seems to be consistent with the victim’s statement in the main part such as the process of assault, etc., it appears that the credibility of the statement appears to exist.

Examining the above evidence in light of the records and legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just.