The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The defendant shall be treated for sexual assault for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Unlike E’s statement concerning similar rape, the Defendant does not have any sexual contact with E in the R car and does not have any sexual contact with E, and there is no further gap in containing the fingers in that sound.

Even after the sexual contact by the statement, E continued to contact with the defendant.

E Statements are not consistent, and the place of crime is not clear.

Moreover, even in the ordinary case where the defendant's sexual intercourse with E was committed, it was difficult to ask him about his sexual intercourse with E, and thus, the E's statement related to the sexual harassment has no such physical characteristics or characteristics.

Therefore, E's statement is not reliable.

However, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below recognized the credibility of E’s statement and found him guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) As to the damage of property, the Defendant only found the victim’s knife with knife as the victim’s husband at ordinary times.

At this time, the door was not opened on the wind where the door of the passenger car is locked, but the hand was lost.

At that time, there was no intention to damage the loss of the defendant.

In fact, the court below had the intention to damage the defendant.

There is an error of law that affected the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the seal was determined.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and 80 hours of sexual assault treatment program) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the reasons for ex officio reversal following changes in indictment.

Of the facts charged for similar rape in the appellate trial, the part of the “as a result of the first instance court’s judgment, the body of the victim was separated by the body of the defendant, and the body of the victim was not separated by the body of the defendant, the body of the victim was stored in the part of the victim’s hand, and the part of “as a hand, the body of the victim who was seated in the front seat of the victim was knicked by the victim’s left hand.”