A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, did not have any contact with the body of the victim C by hand because he shown his sexual organ to the victims, and took one hand and took another mobile phone, and thus, he could not have any contact with the victim C.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant was the victim C's grandchildren, and judged that the defendant's act constitutes an indecent act by force. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the defendant not only shows his sexual organ to the victims at the time of the crime of this case, but also sufficiently recognizes the fact that the victim C's fingers were able to write down, and that this constitutes an indecent act by force, as it takes place by means of force, which is sufficient force to suppress the victims' sexual free will.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. The Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and appears to have committed a crime with the age of 18,00 at the time of the instant case, and the type of force and the degree of indecent act committed by the Defendant against the victims is relatively minor, and the victims agree with the victims in the course of the investigation.