The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim was faced with a shoulderer with the victim who was mast while in a fluorous distance due to a disease, such as misunderstanding of facts, etc., and there was no fact that the victim was her her butt, or her head was slurd, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine and 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court conducted the procedure for examination of a witness, the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts must assess the credibility of the statement by taking into account all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance, attitudes, and the penology of the statement itself, whether it conforms to the rationality, logic, appearance, or rule of experience, or the testimony of a third party, and whether it conforms to the witness evidence or third party’s statement after being sworn in the presence of a judge.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle, so it has an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be considered one of the most important elements in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, or the result of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court was additionally conducted until the closing of arguments in the appellate court.