The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

With respect to the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) 1-A) of the facts charged by mistake of the facts of the Defendant or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the guilty part), it is against objective facts that the victim’s photo is taken on the date and time indicated in the facts charged; and (b) there is no credibility of the victim’s statement on this part; and (c) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone

shall not be deemed to exist.

As to the remaining convictions, the Defendant committed a crime on the part of the charge No. 3-8, 14, 15, 17-25 on a one-year list of crimes among the charge No. 4 and the charge No. 3-8, 14, 15, 17-25, and all of the remainder are crimes committed by a third party.

With respect to each violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media), since all of them was committed for the purpose of threatening the victim, the defendant is not recognized as "the purpose of inducing or meeting his/her own or another person's sexual desire".

The judgment of the court below that ordered the defendant to disclose or notify personal information in spite of special circumstances that prevent the defendant from disclosing personal information, is improper.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (a punishment of four years of imprisonment, an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours, an order to disclose or notify a sexual assault treatment program for six years, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the lower court as to the facts 1 of the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was a lack of proof of falsity, despite the finding of the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The above sentence committed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneased and unfair.

The prosecutor's ex officio determination is a violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) on May 14, 2017 among the facts charged in the instant case, and the victim is the victim.