A. There is no erroneous determination of facts that the Defendant committed an indecent act, such as making a bodily contact between the victim’s bridge with the victim’s body.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s appearance of his sexual organ to the victim is merely a fluence against the victim’s decoration of “indiculous dispute,” and there was no intent to stimulate sexual humiliation or to obtain sexual satisfaction. Therefore, this cannot be included in the concept of indecent act by compulsion.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment, and eight hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of this case was punished in the victim's gathering plan, and the victim immediately after the crime of this case, stated in the investigative agency that "the victim, who was unable to drive the victim in a state where the defendant was faced with a scambling operation, scambling the victim's hand, scambling the victim's hand, and scambling the victim's hand, and scambling the victim's second hand, and scambling the left second hand," and the victim's scambling of the witness to the effect that "I ambling the victim's scambling to the victim's secret scambling at the victim's gathering in the plan of this case, and scambling the victim's body after the victim's testimony was made between the defendant and the victim's body."