The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the Defendant’s indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, there is a fact that the part on which the Defendant was kisck of the victim’s body and kisck of the victim’s body was kisck. However, beyond this, the part on which the Defendant collected the victim’s body and kisck of the victim’s body, kisck of the victim’s kisck, and kis the chest of the victim’s body

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above indecent act, which is caused by mistake of fact and must be corrected.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor’s improper sentencing: The lower court’s sentence is too minor.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The lower court deemed the Defendant as having led to the confession of the facts charged in the instant case and notified the Defendant of the decision to judge it through a simplified trial procedure, and determined that the evidence as indicated in the lower judgment was admissible pursuant to Article 318-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act after the examination of evidence was completed according to the method prescribed in Article 297-2 of the said Act, and that the said evidence is admissible,

However, the defendant asserts that the confession in the court below as to the facts charged of this case was false according to the solicitation of counsel, and argues that the confessions in the court below was false, and that part of the facts charged of this case is argued in the summary of the grounds for appeal

Accordingly, the court of this case revoked the order of the court below that recognized that the confession of the defendant in the court below on the facts charged of this case cannot be reliable and decided through a simple procedure of trial pursuant to Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts