The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the part concerning the defendant's case);

A. The victim of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles stated in the court of the court below that “The statement made at the investigative agency was exaggerated and there was a fact that the defendant was her chest, her tam, but there was no fact that the defendant attempted rape but committed sexual abuse, which shows the attempted rape, rape, similarity, and obscenity images,” and thereby, the statement made at the investigative agency of the victim was revealed to be false.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty based on the statements made by the victim's investigative agency

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (15 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The ex officio determination prosecutor filed a request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device against the Defendant at this court, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the Defendant’s case and the request for attachment order.

The request for attachment order is examined along with the case of the defendant and the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that: (a) the victim’s statement in an investigative agency that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case may be trusted; (b) the victim’s statement in the court of the lower court is not trustable; and (c) the victim’s statement in the investigative agency, including the victim’s statement, may recognize the fact that the Defendant committed each of the acts listed

1...