The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From among the facts charged, there is reinforced evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession regarding the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes on April 2018. However, the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the relevant facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles, although there is evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession.

B. The sentence of the first instance judgment (a punishment of 10 months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of 2 years, a lecture for sexual assault treatment of 40 hours, a community service of 80 hours) against an unfair defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, the following facts acknowledged by the record: (i) the victim made a statement in the police investigation to the effect that “the victim did not have shown sexually related videos taken around April 2018; (ii) even after closely examining the victim’s statement, the victim’s sexual intercourse at the time before and after April 2018 is not revealed; (iii) the existence of sexually related video pictures taken around April 2018, or the time pictures taken by the Defendant do not appear in full view of the following facts: (i) the court of first instance determined that there was no evidence supporting the confession of the Defendant in relation to the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (such as Kara, etc.) around April 2018; and (ii) there was no evidence supporting the confession of the Defendant; and (ii) the court erred by the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).