The judgment below

The guilty part (including the innocent part) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

(b).

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case and judgment of the court below

A. The prosecutor prosecuted the defendant's crime that "after the victim's intrusion into the room (No. 17 caras) where the victim was easy, the victim Eul's name is named. Eul's indecent act by compulsion was committed, Eul's victim E who was in the first floor, and then got up to the second floor after indecent act by compulsion (i.e., partial part), and returned the victim E again and revoluntary indecent act by compulsion (ii)."

The name of the charged crime is "the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act)."

B. The lower court first determined that “it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant infringed on the room.”

In addition, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the ground that “it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have committed indecent act by compulsion of the victim B” (not-guilty) and determined as not-guilty (not-guilty in the part E), and as to the part (not-guilty in the grounds).

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal appealed from the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty (victim E), and the prosecutor appealed from the part not guilty (victim B) and the part not guilty (victim E) among the judgment of the court below.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows:

Defendant

1) In light of the fact that the victim E’s statement consistent with this part of the facts charged is difficult to believe and that the Defendant’s gene type was not detected in the victim E’s body, etc., the part of the facts charged against the victim E cannot be found guilty. In other words, the part of the facts charged against the victim E was erroneous by misapprehending the facts in violation of the rules of evidence. 2) The lower court’s judgment on the conviction part of the lower judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too unreasonable

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the part not guilty and the part not guilty of the reasoning, as follows.