The defendant will give public notice of the summary of the decision.

A. Defendant: The evidence presented by a prosecutor of mistake of facts cannot be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

(b) Public prosecutor: Sentencing (a fine of 10 million won, and 40 hours after completing a sexual assault treatment program).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, at around 00:50 on February 13, 2018, carried out drinking together with the victim D (the victim D, the victim’s age), and E (the victim’s seat), in a karaoke machine as “C” in the Government-si B around 00:50.

During that period, E returned home and left with the victim, the defendant was willing to commit indecent acts by force against the victim by force.

The defect that the victim intends to go to "I wish to go back to his house," and the defendant tried to go out of the victim's will, after the victim's back, etc., pluck up and plicked the victim with the wall, and forced the victim to put the victim's hand into the clothes of the victim, cut off the victim's her kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn't

After the victim resisted the victim's resistance, the victim forcedly committed an indecent act on the part of the victim, such as running away from the singing room, and intending to get the victim's arms attached to the grass field in the vicinity of the G high school located in the city F of Gu, which is located in the city of Gu, and intending to get the victim's scam from the scam on the part of the scam.

(b) Evidence presented by the prosecutor;

The prosecutor suggested the statements of the victim as evidence, photographs and text messages submitted by the victim, on-site CCTV images, and E's statements made by the victim in a singing practice room as one crime.

C. (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged with some parts of the E’s statement and the remaining evidence. (2) However, according to the outcome of the lower court’s re-hamping the victim’s statement in the court and reproducing CCTV images, the lower court determined as follows.