A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, did not have any her but no her her but his her her her son, and only her son.

Even if the indecent act was committed, there was no intention.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, i.e., the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, using the following circumstances: (a) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol: (b) the Defendant’s “Ieman, Ieman, Ieman,” which is short.

“.........................

The phrase “the victim’s sexual harassment”, etc., which led to a continuous drive of the victim who is suffering from his or her own, and ② the victim appears to have been a director by re-consting the Defendant after the occurrence of the instant case, and ③ the Defendant was friendly at the time of committing the instant crime.

In light of the fact that the defendant was at the site with K, and the defendant did not submit any materials to support the victim's argument that he was satisfying the victim's name and contact information to ask the victim's name and contact information. However, the court below committed an indecent act by force on the part of the victim by holding the victim's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her m with

The decision is proper, and there is no error by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and the reasons revealed during the argument of the instant case.