Since only the defendant appealed against this, there is no interest in appeal in the part of the probation order case.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 9(8) and 21-8 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, this part is excluded from the scope of this Court's trial.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (Article 2 of the facts in the original judgment) The defendant does not have any fact of inserting his fingers into the sound records of the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court determined that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the facts constituting the crime 2 as indicated in the judgment in full view of various circumstances recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

We examine the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, and examine the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the victim's oral analysis did not find any doubtful motive or first width, and there was no discovery of any false pressure or unrealistic situation, and the defendant himself also made a statement that he would have caused the victim to go back to the part of the victim, and at least he could have got out of the part of the victim due to the victim's occurrence of loss. In light of the following circumstances, the court below's decision is just and it is judged differently by mistake of facts.