A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Even if the sentencing was found to be guilty, the sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in May, community service order 120 hours, and 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court as it is, upon considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal even in the lower court. The lower court, upon directly observing the witness F by directly observing the witness appearance or attitude of the witness, and the lower court has credibility in the witness’s statement in light of the logical inconsistency of the content itself or the empirical rule, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is just, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the facts are erroneous.