A. Defendant 1) In the judgment of the first instance court that found Defendant guilty of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1 erred by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (specific assertion is stated in the part of judgment).

(2) The judgment of the first instance court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of 10 months, the completion of the sexual assault treatment program at 40 hours, and the employment restrictions between 3 years) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the first instance judgment against the prosecutor accused is too unhued and unjust.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. As to the assertion of absence to prove a crime, the gist of the argument is not only that the victim is unable to completely memory the situation at the time of the crime, but also that of each statement made by the police and the court of first instance at the court of first instance. Although there is no evidence to prove the facts charged, the judgment of the court of first instance was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence in the court of first instance, where the court of first instance, which acknowledged the facts charged that “the defendant was exempted from the victim’s will and pantyty, and brought the victim up without the victim’s body.” The court of first instance, which recognized the facts charged that “the defendant exceeded the victim’s panty and panty panty tybuckbucks,” and the defendant’s bridge was taken up as evidence by the victim’s body, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles, although there is no objective reason that may affect the formation

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. Furthermore, without such exceptional circumstances, the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Meanwhile, the probative value of evidence shall be determined by a judge.