The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Although the Defendant’s act of assault could have come to the victim during the process of spreading the victim’s speech, the Defendant did not throw a cellular phone at the victim as stated in the facts charged, nor did the victim go beyond the victim with the intention of assault. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The Defendant was raped twice as described in the facts charged.

The statements of the victim, which are direct evidence of this part of the facts charged, are not consistent, and they are not in compliance with the rule of experience in light of the situation before and after the case that can be known of the contents of the Kakakao Stockholm conversation, and the victim's actions after the victim's actions

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged guilty based on the victim's statement is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part. Accordingly, the lower court, on August 8, 2018, revealed that the Defendant was interested in female members of other bareboat, and argued with the victim. In that process, the fact that the victim collected mobile phones from the victim, and the fact that the victim was fighting between the Defendant and the victim, while the bareboat member E and the Defendant, when the victim was fighting with the instant bund where the victim was fighting, he could sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim was frightd with the victim and frighted up the victim’s arms and damaged the victim over the floor. According to the respective statements by the victim and witness H, the lower court spreads that the victim bareboat between E, as alleged by the Defendant.