The defendant only caused the misunderstanding of facts to the victim, but did not keep the victim's chest or buckbucks inside.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two-month imprisonment, two-year suspension of execution, two-year probation, community service order, 120 hours, 80 hours required to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture, 2 years of employment restriction order) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's finding of facts and its determination are justified.

The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness of unfair sentencing, has its own territory of the first instance court with respect to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is groundless.