A. Since the Defendant committed an indecent act by mistake on the day of the instant case only once the victim’s sexual organ was delivered, there was no indecent act by means of several times the victim’s sexual organ, the lower court’s judgment that the Defendant committed several indecent acts by compulsion on the part of the victim’s sexual organ was erroneous in matters of determination of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, three years of employment restriction order, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant consistently asserts to the effect that “the victim’s sexual organ on the day of the instant case is delivered once” from the investigation stage to the trial at the court of first instance. However, even if the Defendant’s sexual organ was taken by the victim, the Defendant’s sexual organ can be seen as having been living together with the victim’s sexual organ on several occasions, and ② in the instant facts charged, “from March 5, 2019 to 03:10” the date and time of the Defendant’s crime is specified, and the Defendant continued to commit an indecent act with the victim’s sexual organ, it does not constitute an unlawful determination of facts in the lower judgment, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s sexual organ is confirmed through a video recording the victim’s sexual organ on the same day; and (b) the Defendant’s date and time

Therefore, the defendant's argument disputing this cannot be accepted.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court of first instance on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the court of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the court of first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the court of appeal

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant’s mistake as a whole recognized and reflects his/her mistake.