The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for three years from the date of the final judgment.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the statements made by the victim, etc. that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case are inconsistent with other objective evidence, etc.

In light of the medical history of the victim, the victim's injury is likely to occur as the victim goes beyond his/her own.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the lower judgment’s ex officio sentencing is appropriate prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant for ex officio judgment.

The crime of this case is not likely to be committed by the Defendant’s indecent act by compulsion of the victim and causing injury to the victim at low time.

The victim was suffering from severe mental impulse.

The Defendant denies the instant crime.

However, the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim for the time of the trial.

The degree of indecent act is minor and the king's medical history seems to have somewhat influenced the victim's degree of injury.

Defendant has no record of criminal punishment.

In addition, in full view of the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, etc., the punishment of the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is somewhat unreasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of facts, and this is examined below.

B. The Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.

The lower court, under the title “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion,” found in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence.