A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, including the mistake of fact, did not divating C with the “confection” that was handed down by the Defendant, and the victim did not use the second confection after the end.

In light of the fact that the defendant brought about the victim's family room in the car, the defendant's self-absted and recommended to go to the defendant's hotel and the defendant's hotel, etc., the victim's statement is not reliable. Although the victim was unable to resist at the time of sexual intercourse, and the victim was not at a suppression of resistance, and the defendant did not have any intention to rape the victim, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the basis of the victim's statement without credibility as above. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to order the Defendant to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours.

4) The lower court’s improper order of employment restriction is unreasonable to order the Defendant to be placed on employment for five years at child-related institutions, etc. and welfare facilities for disabled persons.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2) Although the court below did not issue an order to disclose personal information to the defendant, the court below's failure to issue an order to disclose personal information to the defendant, in the absence of special circumstances that would not disclose the personal information of the defendant.

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s mistake of facts, etc.

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) The Criminal Litigation Act adopts the principle of substantial direct deliberation as one of the elements of the principle of public trial-oriented trial that the formation of a conviction for a criminal case’s substance of conviction ought to be based on a trial in the court.

This is a way for judges to directly investigate original evidence in court.