A. In regard to the crime of indecent act by compulsion, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victims as stated in the judgment of the court below. The Defendant did not have any intent to commit indecent act by compulsion. 2) In relation to the offense of insult, the Defendant did not insult the victim D by taking a bath to the victim D as stated in the judgment of the court below. Even if the Defendant made the above remarks, there was no circumstantial performance at the time.

In addition, the defendant's insult cannot be punished separately because it is merely an act of assaulting the victim D by the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of the crime of indecent act by compulsion must be made without any reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible suspicions that have no probative value. The rejection of evidence causing a suspicion without any reasonable ground is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994). Here, “reasonable suspicion” refers not to all questions and correspondences, but to the reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that are inconsistent with the facts that are not necessary based on logical and empirical rules. As such, the degree of the formation of evidence to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be based on this sexual trend that is established in relation to the fact finding favorable to the defendant, so it cannot be said that any doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do13294, Apr. 25, 197; 2007Do12974.).