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. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, ① on June 25, 2014 and the same year

7.5. Rape from each E in the light of any of the following circumstances:

8. Since there was a fact that he was detained in E’s outer money house by F and G around 21, the contents of the instant complaint prepared and submitted by the Defendant to an investigative agency are not false.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on false accusation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its determination in the “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”

In light of the circumstances in the reasoning of the lower court acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. Each of the crimes of this case with regard to the determination of the illegality of sentencing is not only in violation of the State’s legitimate judicial action, but also with the risk of criminal punishment against a person who is in danger of criminal punishment, and there is a need for strict punishment of the Defendant in light of the fact that the Defendant did not receive a letter from E, F, and G of each of the crimes of this case up to the trial of the Party.

However, as well as the fact that the defendant was a primary offender and was detained for a short period of time, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as relationship with the defendant and E, the age and environment of the defendant.