All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) In addition, Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) Defendant finished the drinking place at “D” main points (hereinafter “instant main points”), and Defendant’s act of taking the victim in good faith and causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the victim and contrary to good sexual morality cannot be deemed as an act infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. In addition, Defendant’s humping of the victim at the above main points by the prosecution does not necessarily mean that the Defendant’s humping of the victim at the above main points does not memory.

In light of the fact that the victim made a statement, the victim did not feel a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion due to the above acts of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be assessed as an indecent act by force.

B) As seen in CCTV images, the Defendant: (a) instead of leading the victim; (b) going ahead of the victim; and (c) the victim went ahead of the victim; and (d) the investigative agency designated the place of indecent act as “in front of Q hotel” near the instant main point; (b) the prosecutor made a statement at the prosecutor’s office as “the place where the indecent act was committed; and (c) the lower court made a statement that does not specify the place of indecent act; (d) it is not consistent with the statement; and (e) the statement of H and I is insufficient to believe that the statement of H and I is merely a statement made by the victim, and thus, there is no proof of a crime of indecent act.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the amount of KRW 7 million, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The statement by the victim of a mistake of fact (not guilty for reasons) is a victim’s body, but the defendant could not memory the exact situation while under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, but refused to do so by considering the injured person to the telecom, and at that time the defendant tried to kis.