A. The judgment of the court below that recognized the Defendant’s indecent act based on the victim’s statement without credibility despite the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 5 million, a 40-hour order, and a 2-year restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, such as the entries in this part of the facts charged, in light of the same circumstances as the

If the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is examined as follows, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1 It is recognized that each statement made by the victim in the investigative agency and the court of the court below is somewhat inconsistent or inconsistent with the incidental part, such as the specific form of indecent act or the location of the defendant.

However, as stated in the lower judgment, the victim’s statement appears to be consistent and clear as to the purport of the victim’s statement as stated in the lower judgment, and as to October 31, 2019, the day when the victim testified at the lower court, which was about 1 year and 7 months from April 3, 2018, the date when the instant case occurred, and about 11 months from November 27, 2018, the date when the last prosecutor’s investigation was conducted, there is a lot of room to view that the victim’s statement is somewhat inconsistent or contradictory to the incidental part as the circumstance was merely that there was a loss or distortion of memory that could have occurred after the occurrence of the instant case.