A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts by the request of the victim, and there was no indecent act against the victim as described in the facts charged. The victim’s statement concerning the situation before and after the occurrence of the case is inconsistent with the victim’s statement, and N made a statement that there was no injury from the victim’s statement in the trial court, unlike the victim’s statement, and there was no credibility in the victim’s statement. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the victim’s statement is erroneous. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible, which is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Relevant legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2020Do2473, Jun. 25, 2020) regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2020Do2473, Jun. 25, 2020), while the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, such judgment must conform to logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such a degree that there is no reasonable doubt, but it does not require that all possible doubts be excluded, and the rejection by causing a suspicion

The credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. shall not be rejected without any special reason solely on the ground that the major parts of the statement are consistent, in light of the empirical rule, there is no part inconsistent with the contents of the statement, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in the statement, and as long as the motive or reason behind the statement unfavorable to the defendant is not clearly revealed, or there is no little consistency in the statement on other minor matters.

On the other hand, victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment are victims.