A. In relation to forced indecent acts between September and December 2010, No. 3, 2010, which is attached to the judgment of the court below that misjudgments the facts, the victim changed the aircraft, thereby inducing the victim to fly, so the defendant did not have an intention to commit an indecent act against the victim.

Moreover, the victim did not feel a sense of shame at that time.

statement is made.

In addition, the charges of indecent acts by force Nos. 4 and 5 were distorted, and the time was wrong.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it found all of the charges guilty, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a 3 years of imprisonment, 5 years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of sexual assault therapy) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, all of the facts and circumstances acknowledged in relation to each forced indecent act Nos. 3, 4, and 5 in the part of the judgment below’s reasoning, are justified.

In addition, when the defendant gets the victim into a flight aircraft, the "act of putting the victim's chest in one hand and in one hand in the direction of the victim" is not necessary to put the victim's finger into the direction of the flight aircraft, but does not seem to be an act that occurred regardless of the defendant's intention, such as the defendant's finger in the course of burning the flight aircraft.

In addition, the above actions by the defendant person objectively cause sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and are contrary to good sexual morality, and are sufficient to infringe on the victim's sexual freedom.

I seem to appear.

2.3.2