A. The Defendant is not guilty of having committed a crime against the victim due to a camping-gu room.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts does not necessarily mean that a person’s testimony at the same investigation agency and testimony at the court should be believed to be the latter in case of different statements. Thus, even if the facts constituting a crime are acknowledged by reliance on a person’s testimony at the court and a statement at another investigation agency, it belongs to free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do665, Jan. 25, 2002) so long as it is not illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6665, Jan. 25, 2002). The lower court acknowledged the evidence duly adopted and investigated, i.e., (i) there was a fact that the victim submitted to the police the photograph of the victim who

The report, ② The victim reversed the statement after the agreement with the defendant, ② the defendant, but the prosecutorial office prepared a written agreement with the person who is the defendant's three villages and prepared a written statement with him/her that he/she would not have been able to go beyond his/her stairs at the request that he/she should not go against the defendant's three villages, and explained the reversal of the written statement in a reasonable and consistent manner; ③ the victim made a detailed and detailed statement at the prosecutorial office about the fact that he/she is able to go against the defendant's view from the defendant. The victim made a false statement.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see that there is credibility of the victim's statement at the prosecution.

In light of the facts charged, this part of the charges was convicted.

3) Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the evidence, the judgment below is just even if the evidence submitted by the defendant was considered in the above trial.