The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of facts 1) The misunderstanding of facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below is the 1-A of the facts constituting the crime.

The defendant and the victim related to the port (hereinafter referred to as "victim") have taken their body and exchanged their photographs in the process of codinating with each other, which constitutes a legitimate exercise of the victim's right to self-determination who has the ability to distinguish the body, and thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have produced obscenity, and the defendant did not have such intent on the part of the defendant.

B) On June 8, 2018, the victim of the crime No. 1-B, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, stated that "I wish to talk with another male in a way that I want to have a large number of sexual intercourse" to the defendant, and that the defendant did not instruct the victim to have sexual intercourse with another male and the defendant, and therefore, the defendant did not instruct the victim to have sexual intercourse with another male. Thus, the defendant did not have a obscenity "production" but did not have any intention to do so. 2) The defendant alleged on the crime No. 1-B, as stated in the judgment of the court below, was transmitted with a Handphone a photograph taken by the victim's body part of the victim and a dynamic image taken by the victim with another male and the victim with an oral intercourse with another male, but it was not "bearing."

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

2. Ex officio determination

A. On August 2, 2019, the prosecutor with respect to the prosecutor’s application for changes of indictment made in the trial, while maintaining Article 30 of the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment of the court below as the primary charge, additionally adding "Article 30 of the Criminal Act" to the facts charged, as stated in "Article 3 of the Criminal Act", and filed an application for changes in indictment with the same effect as stated in "Article 3 of the facts constituting the offense in the judgment