A. The Defendant and the victim of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and 30 minutes of the day of the instant case dialogueed along with a road where people have frequent traffic, and the victim did not express his/her intention of rejection clearly even though the Defendant attempted to have physical contact as stated in the facts charged, and did not straw off the relevant place or request other persons to assist.

In full view of the above attitude of the victim and the circumstances leading to the defendant's act, it is difficult to regard the defendant's act as an indecent act against the victim's will, and it cannot be said that the defendant had the intention to commit an indecent act.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant by misunderstanding facts or understanding legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant on unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 3 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom as an act contrary to good sexual moral sense. Whether it is so determined ought to be carefully and carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim prior thereto, circumstances leading to the act, specific manner leading to the act, and the surrounding objective situation and the sexual moral sense of the times (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). Furthermore, where the statements made by the witness, including the victim, correspond to the facts charged, are objectively consistent and consistent, it shall not be rejected without any other evidence that can be objectively deemed as having no credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201 Jun. 28, 2012).