All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. (1) Defendant (1) alleged misunderstanding of facts (the attempted quasi-rape) only tried to have sexual intercourse with the victim, as described in the facts charged, only when the victim’s chest was locked or even did not have the victim’s chest.

(2) Considering the circumstances leading up to the instant crime claiming unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime committed by the public prosecutor and the circumstances in which the Defendant was unable to agree with the victims, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The circumstances indicated in the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim E expressed clearly the Defendant who wants to have sexual intercourse from the investigative agency to the court of original trial by stating that “I would not want to do so, but want to do so. I would like to do so,” and that the Defendant would not want sexual contact with the Defendant. The Defendant is also recognized, the victim E’s statement, which corresponds to the facts charged, 108 pages 108 of the investigation record, is specific and extensive, to the extent that it is difficult to see it as false, and in particular, the victim E gives testimony at the court of original trial that “I want to do so, I would like to do so.” (Article 108 of the investigation record) and the victim’s statement that “I would like to have sexual contact with the Defendant.” (Article 108 of the investigation record).

In full view of the fact that it appears that the defendant and the victim E exchange text messages that suggest the defendant to commit the crime immediately after the crime, the facts charged are to be taken into account, such as the 42-48 pages of the investigation record.