A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the defendant committed the indecent act against the victim by using both buckbucks and rhumbucks of the victim who was close by his hand is sufficiently recognized.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court sentencing does not deviate

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Examining the materials submitted at the trial court, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.