The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, by misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal, did not go against the victim’s house by crepaning the gap without the victim’s money, but did not look at the victim’s chest or put the victim’s chest in the speed. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, i.e., the following circumstances: (a) the victim stated in the court of the lower court that “the Defendant was the victim’s personal mobile phone by asking his/her guidance whether he/she will be asked; and (b) the Defendant himself/herself stated that “the victim was the victim’s house because he/she was the victim’s personal mobile phone,” and that “the victim was the victim’s house” on the second trial date. In so doing, the fact that the Defendant was the victim’s house due to a gap in the absence of the victim’s money is recognized.

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: ① The victim’s statement to the effect that “the defendant sent the victim’s chest and put the victim’s chest over three occasions” is consistent and concrete from investigative agencies to the court of the court below, and there is no circumstance that the victim made such a statement by falsehood or mistake; ② The victim’s written statement in the first written statement prepared by the police does not contain any indication that the defendant was placed in the capacity of the victim; but, this was merely a document stating a summary statement at the early investigation stage, and thus, the part that the defendant was placed in the written statement was omitted.

The above statement of the victim cannot be seen as falling short of the credibility of the victim’s statement, and ③ the Defendant is in short time.