A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to Defendant A’s indecent act on July 17, 2016, the end of July 2016, and Defendant B’s forced indecent act on August 12, 2016, among the facts charged), the Defendants did not commit violence or intimidation to the extent that it would make it difficult for the Defendants to resist, and there was no intentional indecent act by force.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (Defendant A: one year of suspended sentence of imprisonment for April, 40 hours of lecture for treatment of sexual assault, 40 hours of lecture for treatment of sexual assault, Defendant B: one year of suspended sentence of June, and 40 hours of lecture for treatment of sexual assault) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts (as to Defendant A’s forced indecent act on August 15, 2016 among the facts charged, Defendant A’s indecent act on the part of Defendant A) can be acknowledged as the fact that Defendant A forced the victim as described in this part of the charges.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, based on the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A committed an indecent act by assault or intimidation on July 17, 2016; (b) around the end of July 12, 2016; and (c) August 12, 2016 by Defendant B on August 12, 2016; and (b) the victim as indicated in the lower judgment

the Defendants had the intent to commit an indecent act.

may be appointed by the Corporation.

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in light of the evidence examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting

B. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court held that Defendant A committed an indecent act by force against the victim on August 15, 2016 on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

The Court determined that the person could not be determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the court below in light of the evidence examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is so decided as per Disposition.