All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant explicitly withdrawn the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the first trial date.

1) Since the Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, punishment ought to be mitigated.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the statements, etc. of the victim, the prosecutor 1) has credibility of the statement made by the victim of the misunderstanding of facts, and according to the statements, etc. of the victim, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant was raped and injured at his own house for the purpose of sexual intercourse with the victim.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the facts charged in a criminal trial has the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial. The conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1507, Jul. 24, 2014, etc.). In a case where the credibility of the statement made by a sexual decent child who was submitted as one evidence is determined by an investigative agency, considering the fact that the child’s age is strong, the child’s age is confused with the reality, or the source of memory is unlikely to be properly perceived, and how much after the statement was made after the occurrence of the case, or how much the child’s damage was first heard or how much the child’s guardian or the investigator was at risk in the process of the occurrence of the case.