The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twelve years.

For the defendant.

Defendant

In addition, the defendant of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the person requesting probation order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") was sexual intercourses under the agreement with the victim D (the victim's name is the second person), and did not assault or threaten at the time of sexual intercourses.

The defendant was a sexual intercourse with the victim E, and was not assaulted or threatened at the time of sexual intercourse.

The Defendant did not commit an indecent act by force against the victim F, G, H, I, J, K, or X.

The statements of victims shall not be reliable as it has been exaggeratedly neglected that could sufficiently between the pastors and believerss of the church.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (eight years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of employment restriction order) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The part of the defendant's case of the prosecutor's office (e.g., e., e., e., e.g.

The court below's failure to issue an order to disclose or notify personal information to the defendant, although there are no special circumstances to prevent the defendant from disclosing or notifying personal information.

The court below's failure to issue a probation order to the defendant despite the high risk of recidivism in the part of the case of probation order claim is illegal.

Judgment

Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court rejected all of the charges of this case against the Defendant on the ground that the evidence duly adopted and examined was comprehensively taken into account the following circumstances and rejected the Defendant’s assertion.

The court below held that the victim D (a) was the victim D (not until the case number section of 2019 Gohap159, 159, hereinafter, among the criminal facts in the original judgment). ① the victim’s statement is consistent and specific, ② the victim’s statement is discharged on April 30, 2018 and suffered a patient’s uniform.