A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts was not the intention to commit an indecent act against the victim from the beginning, and that the defendant did not have committed an indecent act against the victim by opening the laundry door in a planned way, but was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the lower court made a confession of the facts charged, but the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts, such as the entry of the reasons for appeal, in the judgment of the lower court.

It cannot be said that the probative value or credibility of a confession in the court of first instance is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of appeal differs from the testimony in the court of appeal. In determining the credibility of a confession, considering the fact that the content of the confession itself is objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what does not conflict with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession, it shall be determined whether the confession in the court of first instance has a reason prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or a situation where there is a rational doubt in the motive or process of the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001). The victim clearly stated in the police station that “The victim has no one who has been the defendant two, confirmed that there is no one, and closed the door,” and that “the victim is the victim’s chest and the prosecutor’s statement to the effect that it is not the defendant.”