The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles merely lead to a contingent relationship with the victim, with the consent of the victim, and in light of the circumstances leading up to the defendant's death with the victim, the background leading up to the defendant's contact with the victim, the background leading up to the victim's talkion, the victim's hate speech made within the inn, the victim's age, and the degree of sexual intercourse with the juvenile's teaching experience and sexual consciousness, etc., the defendant did not have the intent to have sexual intercourse with the victim, and there is no fact that the victim had induced the victim by deceiving him, and there is no fact that the victim was under de facto control, and the statement made in the court of the court below by the victim was made in a tension atmosphere with the mother of the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant argued the same purport as the reasons for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion". The judgment of the court below is just in comparison with the records, and it does not seem that there was an error of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The defense counsel argues that the victim's testimony at the court of original instance was made in a tension atmosphere with the victim's mother's presence, and that part of the testimony was made by the paper of the court of original instance and cannot be admitted as evidence because it is not genuine.