A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not have committed an indecent act by force by using her sparingly the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Even if the defendant's elbow is recognized, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act constitutes an indecent act under the Criminal Act as an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and goes against good sexual morality.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. As to the assertion that there was no fact that the Defendant used the victim, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the detailed statement of the judgment on the summary of the evidence in the judgment. In light of the above judgment of the court below after closely comparing the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. 1) With respect to the assertion that an act was not a behavior that may cause sexual humiliation or aversion, “comforcing” in the relevant legal doctrine is objectively an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to an average person who is in the same position as the other party and is contrary to good sexual morality, and thus, infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes such an act is an infringement on the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the offender and the victimized person, background leading to the act, specific form of the act, and objective situation surrounding it.