A. Defendant 1) The fact that there was physical contact, such as the mistake of facts in the facts charged, is acknowledged in itself, but the Defendant cannot be said to have committed an indecent act with the intent to commit an indecent act, and the Defendant’s body was limited to the victim’s body. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 5 million and the completion of sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. “Indecent act” of the relevant legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is objectively an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and contrary to good sexual moral sense, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it is so determined ought to be carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim prior to such act, circumstances leading to the act, specific manner leading to the act, objective situation surrounding the crime, and the sexual moral sense in that time. Moreover, it does not require a subjective motive or objective to stimulate, stimulate, and satisfy sexual desire as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). Meanwhile, in determining the credibility of the victim’s statement, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court is consistent with the victim’s own statement itself, and whether the victim’s testimony and evidence, or third party’s testimony and evidence, etc., or whether it is consistent with the witness’s testimony or witness’s testimony.