A. (1) Although the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (limited to four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances shown in the reasoning of the lower judgment, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is sufficient to fully recognize the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by closely breaking the Defendant’s sexual organ at the left port, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.

Therefore, there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment of the court below, and the above argument is without merit.

B. Under the judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant and the prosecutor also examine the allegation of unfair sentencing.

In addition, considering various circumstances, such as the motive and background leading up to the instant crime, the situation before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, occupation, family relation, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable, as it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too heavy or unreasonable.