The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 40 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s statement on the victim’s house, the victim’s volume of drinking alcohol, the conduct of the Defendant and the victim, the degree of injury, etc. does not coincide with objective evidence or, in itself, are either natural lusent, repeated statements made more clear, and rather exaggerated statements made by the victim.

The fact that the injured party did not appear in the court even though he was adopted as a witness in the original trial and the trial court is due to the burden of proving the truth different from that of the statement in the investigative agency.

In addition, there is no ground to regard that the defendant suffered from the forced indecent act of the defendant as being sufficiently likely to occur during his daily life, and it can be naturally cured following the passage of the time, so it cannot be viewed as an injury in the crime of injury resulting from forced indecent act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the victim's statement without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The Defendant asserted only the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the submission period in the statement of reasons for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Jul. 7, 2017). (b) Prosecutor 1) The sentence that the lower court rendered by the lower court was unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to have exempted the Defendant from disclosure or notification order with respect to the Defendant’s personal information.

2. Determination:

A. In a case where: (a) the credibility of the victim’s statement and the statement of the witness, including the victim’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion, are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it would be objectively viewed.