The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that, although the Defendant did not inserting the victim’s sexual organ into the victim, the Defendant believed only the victim’s statement at the police station and inserted the victim’s sexual organ into the victim’s sexual organ, if the Defendant inserted the victim’s sexual organ, the Defendant’s NA or Y-STR should also be detected in the victim’s conspiracy or mass, but the victim’s sexual organ was found to be “the voice” in the victim’s mass amount, and only DNA was detected in the victim’s panty, and the victim stated that there was no fact that the Defendant inserted the sexual organ in the court below’s judgment, the above judgment below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim, such as the facts charged, by inserting the victim’s sexual organ into the victim.

(1) The first police statement of the victim was made at 4 days after the crime of this case. The victim is specifically and specifically expressing the process of inserting the sexual organ to the extent that it cannot be explained by the victim without direct experience, and the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as making a statement that the defendant does not have any use of violence or intimidation, and thus, credibility is high. At the time of the crime of this case, at the time of the crime of this case, the victim thought that the victim was a person working in the party room operated by the defendant and was flick about the defendant to the extent that he was flick at the ordinary working hours. Thus, it does not appear that the victim made a false statement about the sex insertion for the purpose of punishing the defendant heavyly at the time of the police investigation.

Shed victim does not have any fact that the defendant inserted his sexual organ in the court of original instance.