A. In light of the fact that a defense counsel (unfair sentencing) has given due care to a victim who lives in a usual and sincere manner, and the victim seems to have filed a complaint against the defendant due to other circumstances unrelated to the defendant, that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and that the defendant has difficulties in financial status of marina operated by the defendant, etc., the sentence of the court below’s sentence of one year of suspended execution and 80 hours of community service order is too unreasonable for six months of imprisonment.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted) the victim E has consistently committed an indecent act against the Defendant.

The credibility of the statement is recognized in light of the fact that from the day after the defendant first committed an indecent act, the defendant did not attend the marina operated by the defendant.

The lower court rejected the credibility of E’s statement on the grounds that E did not mention the fact that he was subject to investigation by the police on May 13, 2014, on the grounds that he was forced to give and receive mobile phone messages from the Defendant, and that he did not mention the fact that E was forced to do so, even after he was forced to commit an indecent act on May 7, 2014, that he was in a situation that should consult with the Defendant, such as wage and settlement, etc., after being forced to commit an indecent act on May 10, 2014, and that he was forced to go home without the Defendant’s family members, and that he was forced to go home, and that he did not mention the fact that he was subject to investigation by the Defendant on May 13, 2014, and was forced to make a statement or made a statement to the investigation agency on the fact that he was forced to commit an indecent act with the Defendant’s family members and his family members.