A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts by hand, etc. Defendant 1 did not spawn the victim’s left chest with his hand, or did not spawn the above victim’s left baby with his hand, and there was no intention to do so. 2) Even if the Defendant’s finding of facts as above is recognized, it may not be included in the scope of indecent act by force under the Criminal Act.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the charge of unfair sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable and unfair. (B) In so doing, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of this part of the facts charged even when the Defendant, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, or by mistake of facts, committed an act of deceiving the victim B’s shoulder, arms, and the victim C’s grandchildren as indecent act by force. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts

2. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court, while the Defendant did not have any fact that there was only the victim committed a mistake, argued the same as the grounds for appeal in this part. The lower court rejected the above assertion by explaining the judgment under the “application of the statutes” of the third party of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court is deemed to have been justifiable by comparing the above judgment with the records, and there was no

(A) The defendant's above assertion is without merit, in light of the circumstances where the defendant met the victim and the applicable law.

B. In light of the fact that the physical part of the victim's body contacted by the defendant as to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles is the physical part which may cause a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion as chest and baby, the defendant's act may be sufficiently assessed as indecent act by compulsion. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. The lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine.