A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act at an open space, such as the facts stated in the judgment below, and the statement at the police stage of the victim is contaminated by the police officer. Furthermore, the confession at the court below is only based on the proposal to avoid the disadvantage of the restriction on employment as an oriental medical doctor as a result of legal consultation with the defense counsel of the court below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment for six months, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for forty hours, and the three-year employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the event that the appellate court’s determination of a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not a new objective reason that could affect the formation of a conviction during the trial process, but intends to re-examine the first instance court’s determination ex post facto and ex post facto, the first instance court’s determination of evidence was clearly erroneous

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and without such exceptional circumstances, the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, particularly in the video of the “crime-ho video CD”, the Defendant was unable to leave the string with the string prior to the booming of the string. At that time, the victim’s physical contact began (SJ 201805Do24085080,000:30). When the Defendant’s sales contact with the victim, the victim was aware of such act and sent the string to the Defendant’s order, and the victim was sent to the Defendant’s order even after the 2005Do40845, Apr. 25, 2005.