The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

A sexual assault against the defendant.

1. The lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s guilty of the indecent act by compulsion, bodily injury, and false accusation on October 19, 2015, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of the indecent act by compulsion on September 13, 2015. The lower court’s judgment on the charge of indecent act by compulsion on September 13, 2015 is included in the scope of this Court’s judgment, as the lower court did not appeal and only the Defendant appealed.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On October 19, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground of erroneous determination of facts (the point of indecent act by compulsion and the point of false accusation) (1) of the charge of indecent act by force on October 19, 2015, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding Q’s statement on the sole basis of the victim without any judgment on the credibility of

(2) As to the act of false accusation, the Defendant did not have a K entertainment room on September 13, 2015, and the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of indecent act by force on September 13, 2015, and according to Q’s statement in the lower court and the record (No. 6) of AB on October 19, 2015, it is obvious that the Defendant did not make a indecent act by force on the part of the victim, and therefore, it is obvious that QJ gave a perjury in the lower court’s court.

Therefore, the Defendant’s accusation of perjury does not constitute a false accusation, and in particular, even though the Defendant was acquitted on September 13, 2015, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and a fine of five million won, 40 hours of completing sexual assault treatment programs, 5 years of disclosure of personal information, and 10 years of employment restriction, such as children and juveniles-related institutions) is too unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor’s judgment was examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and the Prosecutor’s judgment on the charges in the case of 2017 Godan621, which read “K’s entertainment room and C office located in Seojin-jin-gu prior to the date and time of committing the crime of the above Defendant case (round September 13, 2015 and around October 22, 2015).”