All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the fact that C, along with the Defendant, allowed the Defendant to go to the telecom, applied the head with the Defendant at the telecom and applied for the elevator at the telecom. In the process, the Defendant did not request the employees to rescue.

On May 24, 2017 (hereinafter the same day does not appear in this context) 01:00, the Defendant only responded to C with the consent of her husband at the Mosel room, and there is no other reason to either evade C or have sexual intercourse at around 04:00.

C filed a complaint under the circumstances where C was unable to memory the situation at the time as the so-called "blakout" and was unaware of the gender relationship.

Therefore, C's statement is not reliable.

Although the court below adopted C’s statements, etc. as evidence of guilt, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts charged that the defendant tried to have sexual intercourse with C by using C’s mental and physical loss status, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant asserted that the prosecutor’s mistake of the facts was consistent, “A was sicked on the shoulder in a sexual flag,” and was 1 to 2 times by inserting a sexual flag.

“The person made a false statement, and received and taken a prescription for the contract.”

C’s statements are reliable.

However, the part of the facts charged that the defendant inserted the sexual organ into the sexual organ of the victim is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thereby, affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 40 hours of sexual assault therapy, community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is unfair, and the defendant asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair due to excessive neglect, and the prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair, because it is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower judgment is dismissed.