A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not have kisced a victim’s kiscs while paying the consideration, and there was no fact that the victim sent obscene images to the victim’s portable phone.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the victim's statement without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (for 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of lecture attendance order for treatment of sexual assault, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Although the judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion after specifically explaining the grounds for appeal in "the judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion" among the judgment of the court below. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below's judgment that recognized the credibility of the victim's legal statement and found the defendant guilty on the whole of other evidences is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts alleged by the defendant or misunderstanding the legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

① Taking into account the victim’s age, the circumstances leading up to the instant case, etc., the victim’s statement does not completely understand the victim’s attitude to avoid responding to questions unfavorable to him/her, even though there is an inconsistent part in the victim’s statement or the victim appears to be an attitude to avoid responding to questions unfavorable to him/her, and

B. The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor was the Kakao Stockholm dialogue between the defendant and the victim or after the case.