The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are merely the fact that the Defendant had been faced with the victim, and even though the Defendant had no intention to commit an indecent act against a female victim because of the same-sex, the lower court recognized the establishment of a crime of indecent act by force solely based on the victim’s statement falling short of credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the rules of evidence and misconception of

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order of 80 hours, and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a statement after the first instance court conducted the procedure for examination of a witness, the first instance court’s determination as to the assertion of facts is required to assess the credibility of the statement, taking into account all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logical inconsistency, or empirical rule, or conforms to evidence or third party’s statement, and whether it conforms to evidence or third party’s statement after being sworn in the presence of a judge, such as the appearance or attitude of the witness who is going to make a statement in the open court after being sworn, and the penization of the statement.

On the other hand, the appellate court's determination of credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the records including the witness examination protocol in principle. Thus, in determining credibility of the statement, there is an essential limitation that the appearance and attitude of the witness at the time of the statement that can be called one of the most important elements in determining credibility of the statement can not be reflected in the evaluation of credibility.

Considering the difference between the methods of evaluating credibility between the first instance court and the appellate court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.