The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

The lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, convicted of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape), violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Rape”), and rape, and dismissed public prosecution against violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., and only the Defendant appealed on the ground of misconception of the facts regarding the guilty portion, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine,

Therefore, since the court below's dismissal decision was separated and confirmed as it was, it was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Although the Defendant, as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below, has made a verbal dispute with the victim at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) of the same Article, there was no difference between the victim and the victim, and only sexual intercourse was made under an agreement with the victim at the time and place specified in paragraph (2), and did not commit rape against the victim’s will by photographing the body or threatening the victim.

On September 13, 2015, in relation to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special rape), the victim’s statement was credibility or credibility, and at the time of the instant case, the point at which the Defendant threatened the victim by sexual intercourse was made, and the statement was not consistent as to whether the Defendant threatened the victim by sexual intercourse, and the police entered tts and reflects at the time of the instant case.

In the case of having made a statement and under investigation by the prosecution, it was suffering from Titrts and maths.

The statements, such as statements, were not consistent and reversed.

In addition, on October 1, 2015, even if according to the victim's statement at the time of questioning with the defendant on Sep. 13, 2015, the defendant did not have a sexual relationship because it did not occur.

The court below is somewhat lacking in consistency with the victim's statements.

While recognizing the credibility of the victim's statement, in light of the contents and circumstances of the statement.