All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and five months.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim in the same manner as indicated in the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing an indecent act by compulsion.

C. The sentencing of the original judgment (the first instance judgment: the imprisonment of April, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours, and the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of January and April) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination, the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgment below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals. Since each of the offenses of the judgment of the court of first and second is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more

However, the above mistake of facts and argument about mental and physical disorder of the defendant still are subject to the judgment of this court, even though there are the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, namely, the victim’s statement at the victim’s complaint room and the police room are specific and consistent and highly reliable; the reproduction result of CCTV CD is consistent with the victim’s statement and supports the credibility of the victim’s statement; on the other hand, the Defendant led to the confession of this part of the facts charged in the lower court’s judgment and does not seem to have any circumstances to suspect the credibility of the confession.