(a) There is no fact that a loss has been placed in the victim of mistake of facts; and

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of community service order, 240 hours of community service order, 40 hours of attending lecture for sexual assault treatment, 3 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below closely, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts alleged by the defendant.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing was imprisoned and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.