A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles and the victim did not have a relation to either engaging in an indecent act by force or forced indecent act by force on duty, and rather, they were in a very close relationship to the extent that it is difficult to say that they domination, potteries, kis, kiss, kiss, kis, etc., and do so even in a usual manner.

On the other hand, when the defendant requested kis, the victim's kis cannot be said to be an indecent act by force on duty by kiscing kis without refusal.

The victim himself was aware of the defendant, and thereafter the defendant was kneeker, and the victim was aware of the defendant's knee and knew of the defendant, so that the defendant's grandchildren became naturally contacted the victim's knee.

Defendant did not engage in any conduct, such as rhyming, taking charge of, or exposing the victim’s her malm for the purpose of interesting, stimulating, or satisfaction of sexual desire, but rather did not engage in any conduct, such as rhyming, taking out the victim’s her malm with the victim’s hyming and cutting off the victim’s hym in all other employees, and making the victim hyming and her malming the victim’s hyming (not only may such conduct might have been uncomphered from the victim’s perspective, but also may have not

In addition, even if the Kakao Stockholm messages sent and received between each other, it is difficult to see that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act or indecent act by force on duty.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant committed an indecent act by force or by force on duty against the victim.

There is an error of law that misleads facts or misleads the legal principles on indecent acts, etc.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of lecture for sexual assault treatment, 80 hours of community service order and two years of imprisonment).