The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit any quasi-Rape against the victim.

Each statement made by the victim in the investigative agency and court, as shown in the facts charged of this case, is not a fact of actual experience, but a statement made by the victim's person's reasoning or perception, and it is not consistent with the common sense in light of the situation before and after the fact. Even if the victim's statement is not false, it is highly probable that the victim's statement will be a result of misconception of the reality because the victim's side effect of the multi-trut which the victim s/he s/ she s/ she s/

On the contrary, although the defendant's defense and the statement of E consistent with the defendant's defense are consistent and consistent with the objective third party's statement, such as police officers dispatched to the scene of crime, the court of original judgment has arbitrarily rejected it, thereby misunderstanding of facts that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of a misunderstanding of facts as to the victim’s statement is consistent with the main part of the victim’s statement in light of the empirical rule, and there is no part inconsistent with the victim’s statement in light of the victim’s statement or in itself, and as long as the motive or reason to make a false statement is not clearly revealed, the victim’s statement may not be rejected without any justifiable reason on the ground that there exists a change in the part that appears to be inconsistent with the minor part due to a difference in the expression or the initial conclusive statement was made to a somewhat unclear statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5407, Nov. 23, 2006).

The following circumstances recognized by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court: