All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the premise that the Defendant was guilty of committing a similar rape even though he did not commit a similar rape, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.

The lower court did not accept the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant committed quasi-Rape.

In light of the contents of the judgment of the first instance court and evidence duly examined by the first instance court in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of an additional examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial ends, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In addition, the appellate court shall not arbitrarily deny the credibility of the statement solely on the ground that there is a lack of somewhat consistent consistency in the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial in the major part of the statement made by the witness, if there is a consistency in the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of an additional examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial ends (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008).