A. Fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles that the victim's fingert her butt her butt her part in his or her part in his or her part in his or her part, does not constitute an indecent act, as it does not significantly infringe the victim's sexual humiliation or sexual morality appraisal. In addition, the defendant did not have any intention to commit an indecent act.

B. The sentence of the lower court (five million won in penalty, five million won in punishment, and order to complete a program) is too unreasonable.

2. In the judgment of the court below, the defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and in particular, on August 27, 2020, the defense counsel's written opinion (the trial record No. 73,74 of the trial record), the defendant asserted that even though her son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son'

In regard to this, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion and convicted the defendant of the crime of this case, while explaining the reasons for the second through third through third through fifth of the judgment. In light of the records of this case, the court below's judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts alleged by the defendant, nor of misunderstanding the legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it in the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).