A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order) is too unhued and unjust.

B. (1) Defendant (1) did not have a misunderstanding of facts as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

(2) The victim of the misapprehension of the legal principle did not have a state of mental or physical disability or impossibility at the time of the instant occurrence.

(3) The above sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall assess the credibility of the statements, taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the statement, and the penology of the statement, which are hard to record in the witness examination protocol, after being sworn before and after the judge's oath, in order to determine the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, where the statements made by the victim, etc. are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, the court shall not dismiss them without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. objectively and objectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2631, Aug. 28, 200).

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant used the victim’s defectiveness or unable to resist as stated in the facts charged in the lower judgment.