A. Since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim at the time of the crime as stated in each of the facts charged in this case, the judgment of the court below that recognized it is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts (Chapter 1). 2) The defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim as described in each of the facts charged in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of the statements made by the victim without credibility, and such judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

(3) As to the facts charged in the instant case, even if the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as described in this part of this part, it cannot be deemed to constitute an “indecent act” in the crime of indecent act by compulsion. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles (Chapter 3). (b) The sentence (Article 10 million won of fine) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles must be made by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime. As such, the date and time of a crime should be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with the period of double prosecution or prescription. The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged by such elements is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient to include the facts in a way that can easily distinguish them from other facts in light of these elements, and if it is deemed that there is no hindrance to the defendant’s right to defense, the contents of the prosecution are not specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1680, Dec. 9, 1994; 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002).