The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine were serving as the crew in charge of cooking at the ocean-going line, and the Defendant did not depart from the Republic of Korea from around April 24, 2018 and did not reside from that time.

Therefore, in the case of the crime in this case, it was impossible for the defendant to commit the crime at the home of the victim in Korea in the case of the crime committed again No. 7 (the crime of Habman on April 2018) and No. 8 (the crime of Habman on May 2018).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is too uneasible to the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, the judgment on No. 7 No. 7 of the crime list in the judgment below 1) The grounds that the confession in the prosecutor's office or the court of first instance differs from the testimony in the appellate court alone are not sufficient to doubt the probative value or credibility of the confession.

In determining the credibility of a confession, it is not possible to determine whether the contents of the confession in itself are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading up to the confessions, and what does not conflict with or conflict with the confessions among the evidence other than the confessions, etc., the confession of the defendant should be determined as to whether there is a reason under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or a situation in which he would have a reasonable doubt in the motive or process of the confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001; 2001Do2064, Mar. 12, 2002). In consideration of the fact that the defendant led to a confession from an investigative agency to the trial date, and that there is no reason for the confessions as to his own confessions from one trial date.