Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the attachment order case is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. There was no fact that the Defendant misunderstanding the fact that he was the victim, and even if otherwise, the Defendant forced the victim to commit an indecent act by assault or intimidation in light of various circumstances at the time.

Although it is difficult to see it, the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the victim's statement, etc., and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act according to the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor, such as the victim’s statement, as stated in

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) The victim, at the investigative agency, met the Defendant on the road where the victim was located at the victim’s house, and the Defendant was leading the victim’s hand, leading the victim to the convenience store and continued to take the victim’s hand on a canter even though the victim became aware of.

② The Defendant asked where he/she would go in front of the victim’s house and asked where he/she would go.

(3) The Defendant was kiscing a victim’s kisck between vehicles, and sprinking the victim.

“..........”