The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, first of all, was in the process where the victim was removed from the victim who was able to remove flaps of the Defendant, and there was no fact that the victim was injured or committed an indecent act by force as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (6 months of imprisonment and 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. (1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges on the grounds that the victim’s statement can be sufficiently reliable, and if the victim’s statement and other evidence were to be taken into account as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant was found to have committed an indecent act by force against the victim, by considering the victim’s statement and other evidence as stated in the facts charged.

(A) On December 3, 2017, immediately after the instant crime, the victim reported around 16:39 on December 3, 2017, and 112 “The Defendant was able to place the Defendant on a bleep and down on a lower level as his hand.”

“The first report was made to the effect that the Defendant and the victim were not in good relationship before the instant crime was committed.”

Even if the injured party who reached the age of 72 was able to make a false statement from the first report with a view to rejecting the defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

(B) After reporting as above, from the investigative agency to the original trial, the victim took a negative part of the victim’s body, stating that “the Defendant was her body after leaving her body by hand, and she was seated, and “I am sing off, singing off the singular hole. I am h.”

It has made a concrete and consistent statement to the effect that it is "," and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the above statement.

(c).