The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The summary of the lower judgment: (a) the Defendant: (a) reported that the victim (the victim, 16 years of age) was able to find a person to lend money through mobile-recording Stockholm “A”; and (b) proposed that the Defendant lent money to the victim; (c) moved the victim to the victim’s seat on his/her own car at the commitment place; (d) took the victim out his/her clothes by threatening the victim in the vehicle; and (e) took the victim out his/her clothes by threatening the victim in the vehicle; and (e) forced the Defendant’s sexual organ into the victim’s mouth; and (e) took the Defendant’s fingers into the part of the victim’s drinking; and (e) took the victim’s fingers into

[Violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (similar act)] was prosecuted as the facts charged, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for three years, 40 hours, order to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours, and

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant (A) committed similar acts under an agreement by paying compensation to the victim of mistake of facts, and did not commit similar rape by assaulting and threatening the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below believed only the victim's statement and found the victim guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The above imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, etc.) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable and unfair.2) The above imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts 1) The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court. However, the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, is the following circumstances, i.e., ① the investigative agency from the lower court to the lower court’s court’s judgment, and the victim’s statement is specific and consistent.