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

B. Inasmuch as the date and time of the instant indictment cannot be deemed to have been specified, the instant indictment constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of the law. 2) The instant indictment is lawful.

Even if the act listed in the facts charged is not considered an indecent act.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (the fine of three million won and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on mistake of facts

A. The lower court, based on the same argument as the grounds for appeal in this part, stated in the part on “determination of the Defendant’s argument” in the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant continuously committed an indecent act against the Defendant. (1) The Defendant stated that, around July 2013, 2013, the Defendant made the victim’s speech “fright at home” in indecent act by compulsion against the victim (the witness D’s statutory statement, page 9 of the investigation record), and on December 2013, when the victim took rest after his snow removal work, the Defendant stated that “where the victim took rest after his snow removal work, many cold and frozen land, and the investigation record should be imposed on the victim” (the witness D’s legal statement, page 9 of the investigation record), and that, around February 2014, the Defendant made a consistent statement to the effect that he made the victim’s sexual testimony by force, including witness witness’s witness’s testimony (the victim’s temporary statement and investigation record, and that the Defendant made the victim’s oral statement and investigation record, etc.)