A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts does not have taken the victim’s body without the victim’s consent or consent. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement of the judgment.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the victim took the eye before having sexual intercourse with the Defendant at the investigative agency, which was found to have taken the body of the Defendant without the victim’s consent. After that, on August 2018, the first police officer confirmed the Defendant’s location in his cell phone, and reported it to the police. (ii) the Defendant taken the body of the victim for reference before having sexual intercourse with the victim before having sexual intercourse with the victim.

In light of the fact that the defendant made a statement and made a statement to the effect that he voluntarily taken the victim's body, the fact that the defendant taken the victim's body against the victim's will that may cause sexual humiliation or shame as stated in the judgment below can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant.

In comparison with the original judgment, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions, and considering the reasons for the sentencing revealed in the proceedings of this case.