Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, did not transmit a victim’s sexual or obscene text message.

The statements of the victim and the statements of father F of the victim are not reliable.

The screen (the investigative record 54 through 57 pages; hereinafter referred to as the “the screen after the closure of the instant case”) is inadmissible after capturing the contents of the DNA conversation in which the victim seems to have given and received with the Defendant and the victim and capturing it to F mobile phones.

Although the contents of the above D conversation made a false operation using the pertinent app, it is not proven that the victim did not submit the victim’s cell phone containing the original, that is, the content of the conversation, that is, the victim’s cell phone containing the original, and that the original was not operated, and that the screen and the copy of the interview in this case are the same.

Nevertheless, the lower court acknowledged the instant facts charged by using it as evidence.

2) The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, sent text messages to the victim as described in Article 2 of the facts charged.

Even if the Defendant and the victim were in a relationship with the victim, or in light of the cultural standards of the victim residing in a foreign country, it is difficult to deem that the above text messages causes sexual humiliation or aversion.

3) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won or more, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, first, we examine the admissibility of evidence on the screen by cutting down the closure of the instant case.

After the closure of this case, the screen is not subject to the specialized rule as evidence of non-statement, and the admissibility of evidence is recognized on the premise that the identity with the original and the original are not fabricated.

In this case, the above-mentioned premise of admissibility of evidence is problematic from the defendant in addition to the appraisal.