All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not commit any act described in the facts charged Nos. 1 and 2.

2) In other words, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine and did not intend to abuse the act as stated in Articles 3 through 5 of the facts charged.

3) The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the victim consistently and specifically stated the facts of damage to the No. 1 and 2 in the judgment of the investigative agency up to the original trial.

Witnesses also made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was at the time when the investigation agency was unable to well conduct a male movement or when the Defendant was sicking or cutting down the ships, including the victim, and that such assault was ordinarily continued, and that the court below made a statement to the effect that the specific method of assault is not memory.

The credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency is not sufficient to reverse the credibility of the statement.

Based on evidence, such as the statement of the victim and witness, the defendant committed an act set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the ruling.

The lower court’s determination that determined the person is justifiable.

The defendant's assertion of facts cannot be accepted.

B. The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of legal doctrine.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the basis of the facts found on the basis of the legal statement and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor after examining the victim and witness as a witness.

Examining the records and evidence closely, the judgment of the court below is justifiable.

We cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

(c)

In comparison with the judgment of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable discretion range.