The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the criminal facts No. 1) does not contain credibility and there is no evidence to reinforce the confession made by the defendant at the court of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won in punishment, and 40 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

1) In determining the credibility of a confession, it shall be determined whether the contents of the confession themselves are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or contradiction with the confession among the circumstances other than the confessions, and whether there is a situation where there is a reasonable doubt as to the grounds provided in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the motive or process of the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do214, Dec. 8, 2000). According to the records, it is impossible to find that the contents of the confession themselves are objectively unreasonable, or that there is no reason provided in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is a situation where there is no voluntariness of the confession, or there is a rational doubt in the motive or process of the confession.

There is no evidence to determine the person.

Therefore, the confessions made by the defendant are consistent with the truth and credibility.

It is reasonable to view it.

2) According to the images of the crime scene photograph (77th page of the evidence record), the Defendant’s name or non-exploited female who wear a black fluor on July 8, 2015, with a black fluor within the electric fluoron of 07:40 on July 8, 2015.