The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a mistake of fact is true that the defendant suffered indecent acts by compulsion from H, the defendant’s reporting H to the police station is not unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the defendant argues that the defendant's statement or the testimony of the defendant on the date of trial entered in the suspect examination protocol is false confession and that it is false confession, the court should determine whether the above statement was made arbitrarily by free conviction in consideration of all the circumstances such as the defendant's educational background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence, the contents of the suspect examination protocol, and the form of the protocol in the case of the suspect examination protocol (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do705, May 30, 2003). In addition, in determining the credibility of confession, the court should decide whether the contents of the confession are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the reason why the confession was made, what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and what does not conflict with or conflict with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6497, Jan. 27, 2012). The Defendant, from an investigative agency to a court in the original trial, led to the confession of all the criminal facts without a complaint as stated in the lower judgment. However, even though the Defendant, at the time of the trial, re

We examine the Voluntaryness and credibility of confession made by the defendant in the original judgment.

In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and examined by the Health Team, the lower court, and the first instance court, namely, the Defendant, who stated that the police did not force H to force the indecent act by force, had caused a sudden accident on May 27, 2018 to H around May 30, 2018.

only once.