All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In light of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (including the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Violence, Indecent Act, Confinement, Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the victim have a sexual relationship several times under an agreement between the Defendant and the victim, the victim’s statements are inconsistent and contradictory; the victim’s statements are not consistent and contradictory; there is no mental impediment; there is no objective evidence to support the victim’s statements; there is no statements or objective evidence from the neighbors to the victim; and the victim has a circumstance where punishment can be imposed by gathering the defendant by false statements. Nevertheless, the credibility of the victim’s statements is not recognized. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment convicting this part of the facts charged on the grounds that credibility exists in the victim’s statement and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and of misapprehending of legal principles.

B. It is improper for the lower court to exempt the public disclosure order, notification order, and employment restriction order, and the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant was similar to this part of the grounds for appeal.

However, although the defendant led to the confession of the assault in the court below, he recognized only the fact that he saw the victim's her her son, and denied the remaining facts of the assault.

In regard to this, the lower court is somewhat doubtful of the victim’s statement. However, as stated in its reasoning, the lower court is sufficiently acceptable in light of the victim’s special circumstances.