All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles are neither consistent nor consistent with the common sense, and thus no credibility is good. Since the statements made by witnesses are not specific nor unrecognified, there is no credibility. In particular, unlike the written facts concerning each charge of which the date and time was around September and October 2017, the Defendant and the victim committed sexual acts by agreement. Nevertheless, the lower court (the first instance court) convicted each of the facts charged in this case on the basis of the above statements without credibility. In so determining, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges in this case on the grounds of a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (a punishment of imprisonment for a maximum of three years,

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall not reject the statement without permission, unless there are any other reliable data that can objectively be objectively deemed to lack credibility when the statement made by the witness, including the victim, etc. conforms to the reasonableness, logic, appearance, or rule of experience, or conforms to the witness evidence or third party’s statement in the presence of a judge. Moreover, the witness’s appearance, attitude, and appearance of the witness who is going to the witness in the open court after being sworn at the presence of a judge, and the witness’s appearance, appearance, and appearance of the statement, which are difficult to be recorded in the witness examination protocol, shall be evaluated as credibility, and where the statement made by the witness, including the victim, conforms to the facts charged, is objectively consistent and consistent with the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Do7423, Nov. 12, 2015; 2004Do3624, Apr. 15, 2005).

In part, the other cases are consistent.