The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no fact that the defendant committed a misunderstanding of facts caused injury to the victim by a misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, by having committed a fraudulent contact with the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The victim stated from the investigative agency that the Defendant was in contact with the victim by fraud as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and that the victim inflicted an injury on the part of the victim, such as the entrance of the victim. Despite the lack of intellectual ability of the victim, the victim’s statement is consistent and concrete, and thus, it is highly reliable.

② On February 15, 2018, the day following the instant crime was committed by the victim, who was given the treatment of being franking the upper part of the entrance in a sexual surgery.

(3) The medical record prepared by the victim at the time of receiving the above medical treatment in a hospital shall contain the statement that the victim exceeded the victim and passed it.

D, the victim requested assistance immediately after the instant case, stated that he/she made a false statement to his/her doctor in order to be subject to medical insurance, and credibility is consistent and natural.

④ Although the Defendant pointed out the fact that the victim was deprived of his escape from committing a crime after submitting it to an investigation agency, as long as the above contact was submitted as evidence to an investigation agency and returned it, it seems that there was no need for further custody of the victim.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is discretionary.