The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement, the direct and sole evidence of the facts charged of this case, is inconsistent with the date, method, etc. of quasi-rape.

Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the charges of this case guilty on the basis of the statements of the victim without credibility.

B. The lower court’s sentence (eight years of imprisonment, 120 hours of order to complete the course) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor tried ex officio, and the prosecutor committed physical abuse under Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 subparag. 3 of the former Child Uniforms Land Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same) as “Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 subparag. 5 of the former Child Uniforms Land Act,” and the last part of Article 71(3) of the facts charged.

“Along with the emotional abuse that may harm the mental health and development of a child victim”, “Along with the emotional abuse of the victim.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed.”

Inasmuch as this court has changed the subject of adjudication by permitting it, the judgment of the court that found the accused guilty of all the charges including the charges prior to the change and sentenced a single sentence can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was identical to the grounds for appeal on this part in the lower court, and the lower court, based on such evidence, has credibility in the victim’s statement on the grounds of detailed circumstances under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the said judgment, and thus, based on such evidence.