A. The lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on a different premise is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s hand, etc. was intentional, because the Defendant’s hand, etc. was not danced by the victim’s her son, and on other premise, was guilty of the instant facts charged. 2) Unless the lower court’s order on unreasonable sentencing is the case, the Defendant’s health conditions are not good as a basic livelihood recipient, such as urology, pathology, high blood pressure, and depression, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the same kind or fine, and the Defendant did not focus on the degree of indecent conduct. In light of the above, the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 3 million and sexual assault treatment program of KRW 400,000) is unreasonable.

B. Although the prosecutor (unfairness) received the victim is not easy to cause mental pain and sense of shame, the defendant denies the facts of crime as well as the attitude to criticize the victim, etc. The victim's statement does not seem to have any reflective mechanism. According to the victim's statement, although it was not a criminal case, even before the case, it seems that there was an indecent act in the way that the female who was the defendant's way was her her sent. However, considering the fact that the risk of recidivism is considerable, the above punishment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the Defendant alleged not guilty in the lower court to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. This comparison of the lower court’s judgment