A. The victim misunderstanding the facts was a woman in the defendant's behavior, who was a woman with respect to the defendant's non-existence and self-esteem.

According to CCTV images, the victim was physically contacted the defendant's body.

Therefore, the defendant's act of using sparing the victim's body against the victim's body and rhyming his head constitutes a forced indecent act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized only the crime of intrusion on residence and did not recognize the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous and erroneous.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service, 40 hours) is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was forced to commit an indecent act by taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

The decision was determined.

① The Defendant and the victim’s appearance taken in the field CCTV can be seen in the view that it is a fluorous fluor that a male is a fluoring female fluor, and it seems that there is little room for sexual elements to intervene.

(2) It is difficult to readily conclude that it is a physical part that generally infringes on sexual freedom or causes sexual aversion, in light of the body parts of a victim contacted by the defendant.

(3) The defendant was only in contact with the arms or arms, hair or hair of the victim, and did not sexually speak or addly act.

This is consistent with the defendant's assertion that the victim tried to compromise again with the victim.

(4) A victim may feel a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion due to the acts of the defendant except at the time of initial investigation.