Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

(The defendant and his defense counsel stated that the grounds for mental disorder alleged as the grounds for appeal in the defendant's statement of grounds for appeal on the date of the first trial at the trial of the court of appeal are different from the sentencing, and that they filed an appeal on the grounds of unfair

(1) The public prosecutor’s erroneous determination of facts (the delivery of a philophone on September 11, 2018 to the defendant) that corresponds to the facts charged in this part does not interfere with the use of the M’s statement as evidence of guilt as sufficient credibility. Nevertheless, the lower court’s rejection of the credibility of M’s statement and the Defendant’s acquittal of the issuance of a philophone on September 11, 2018 against the Defendant is unlawful. 2) The sentence (two years of imprisonment, 40 hours of completion of a sexual assault treatment program, 40 hours of collection), which the lower court rendered on the grounds of unfair sentencing, is unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, and the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s examination until the closing of arguments, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court until the closing of arguments in the appellate court.