The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the victim was a woman who works in the business place called so-called so-called so-called so-called "diet tea", the victim received 150,000 won from the defendant prior to the case stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, the victim returned 150,000 won to the defendant who was dissatisfied with the defendant's refusal to engage in sexual relations, and the victim reported the defendant as a retaliation against the victim's illegal business after the victim reported the illegal business, it is difficult to believe the victim's statement that he was forced by the defendant, and therefore, it is not recognized that the defendant was forced to engage in indecent conduct.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds of the statement of the victim without credibility. The court below erred by mistake of facts.

B. Even if the sentencing is found guilty against the defendant, the sentence of the court below (2 million won in punishment, 40 hours in order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts 1) In determining the credibility of a victim's statement, etc. supporting the facts charged, the credibility of the statement shall be assessed by considering all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logical contradiction, or empirical rule, whether it conforms to physical evidence or third party's statement before a judge, and whether it conforms to the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penance of the statement in the open court after being sworn before a judge, and if the statement in the witness examination protocol is consistent with the major part of the statement, the credibility of the statement is assessed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012).