Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

A. The Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed an indecent act by compulsion of facts (the guilty part of the Defendant’s case in the first instance judgment) and quasi-indecent act by compulsion under the agreement with the victim, and the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim without awareness as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) The Defendant’s rape on July 27, 2019 merely told the Defendant to disseminate dynamic images to meet with the victim, and was also in sexual intercourse with the victim under an agreement with the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. 2) The sentence (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for ten months) sentenced by the first instance court on July 27, 2019 is too unreasonable.

3) It is improper for the first instance court to issue an order to disclose information, order to complete a program, order to complete a program, or order to restrict employment to the Defendant. B. According to the victim’s statement, etc. by mistake of facts (the part not guilty of the Defendant’s case in the first instance judgment), the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of rape as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2) The punishment sentenced by the first instance judgment of the first instance court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment of the first instance court on the defendant's case and the second lower judgment

A. Ex officio determination (the guilty part of the defendant's case and the second judgment) of the first judgment, the defendant appealed against the guilty part of the defendant's case and the second judgment. The prosecutor appealed against the defendant's case among the first judgment, and the court decided to consolidate each of the above appeals cases.

However, among the judgment of the first instance, the guilty part of the defendant case.