All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the first instance judgment on Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the indictment of this case was conducted based on the victim’s statement protocol containing false statements made by the victimO and the victim’s false statements made by the victim, and thus, it violates due process of law, and thus, the judgment dismissing the prosecution should be rendered.

(2) In addition, along with the instant indictment and the instant summary order request, documents on the criminal records, etc. of the Defendant were submitted as accompanying materials and evidence. Since the above documents that can be submitted to the trial without a summary order against the Defendant were submitted to the court below by attaching them to the indictment, the instant indictment was contrary to the Japanese principle of indictment, and thus, the judgment dismissing the prosecution should be sentenced.

(3) Although the Defendant did not take a bath to the victimO, the lower court adopted the evidence that the police officer operated and rejected CCTV images from evidence and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(4) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of erroneous facts based on distorted and pre-judgments, and considered the Defendant’s criminal records on the grounds of sentencing as an unfavorable sentencing factor against the Defendant. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on inconsistency with the reasoning.

B) (1) The finding of facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below based on the evidence presented by the court below is unreasonable in violation of the empirical and logical rules, and the court below recognized the guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the altered evidence and determined the punishment against the defendant due to erroneous sentencing, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, such as inconsistency in the reasoning, misunderstanding of facts,

(2) It is unlawful for the police to arrest the defendant at the time of the occurrence of the instant case due to the suspicion of interference with duties.