The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the defendant committed a mistake of fact with the victim's mother D and living together with the victim at the time of the crime of this case, there is no indecent act by force against the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, the case is examined ex officio, and the prosecutor, at the trial, at the same time, the date and time of the crime under paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the instant case from April 2013.

5. The same year from April 201 to 23:00 of the day between the police officers in First Lieutenant; and the date and time of the crime under paragraph (2) from April 2013 to April 2013.

5. The date and time of the crime in paragraph 3 to “one day from May 2, 2013 to the lower police officer of the same month,” respectively, applied for amendments to a bill of amendment. Since the subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake that there is no fact that the victim had been forced to commit an indecent act despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court are: (i) the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the trial court that he was damaged by each of the crimes of this case; (ii) the victim’s situation at the time of each crime; (iii) the Defendant’s behavior; and (iv) the victim’s emotional distress or thoughts, etc., with abundant and detailed descriptions about the victim’s emotional distress or thoughts, and without his own direct experience; and (iv) there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in light of the empirical rule; and (v) the victim’s each of the crimes of this case.