The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant thought that the victim, a wife, was at the same time fluencing with his own fluencing with his own fluencing with his own fluencing with his own flusing with the victim's scencing system, and put the victim's scencing system into the coffee. However, the Defendant immediately called the victim's scencing with his own scencing with scencing with his mind by making the victim’s house and scencencing with his own scencing with the victim's body. Since the victim was made several calls on several occasions, it was flusing the victim's scencing with the victim's scencencing system without receiving the victim's scencencing with the victim's scencencing system.

The defendant did not put the body leading system into the coffee of the victim in order to make indecent acts by compulsion against the victim, did not have any fact that the victim spawn the victim's spawn, and the victim misunderstanding the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the victim’s statement without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, 80 hours of sexual assault treatment program, and 5 years of disclosure of information) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, and the prosecutor’s judgment that changed the facts charged in the instant case to the following facts charged.