All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1), although it is clear that the defendant inserted his sexual organ into the victim G’s sexual organ, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Defendant; (b) the victim’s statement as to whether the Defendant inserted the sexual organ into the sexual organ are inconsistent; (c) in particular, at the time of the instant case, the victim was in a state of shesheshel and without a mind so that he could not be seen earlier by being exposed to serious assault from the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant’s repeated act of putting his finger in the sexual organ into the sexual organ cannot be ruled out that it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement as it is, as it is, because it is difficult to say the victim’s statement because the Defendant’s statement of the former Women’s Counseling Center N is difficult, i.e., the victim’s statement “the Defendant inserted the sexual organ into the sexual organ of the victim.”

“Inasmuch as the content of the victim’s statement is too minor, as long as it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement as it is, the N’s statement alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and ③ According to the fact-finding with respect to the head of the Gu-U.S. Hospital affiliated with the original court of the first instance, the Defendant may detect the victim’s obsive acid dysium, which was detected as a result of the inspection of the quality washing in a way other than by inserting a sex instrument into the female’s quality. As such, the Defendant inserted the victim’s sexual sysium into the victim’s negative body only on the basis of the foregoing fact-finding.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to conclude, the prosecutor submitted.