Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.

2. The lower court determined: (1) during the process of requesting the refund of goods purchased before the Defendant visited D Customer Service Center at the time of the instant case, the Defendant, as an employee, had a procedural issue; (2) the Defendant: (c) the Defendant’s loss, which caused the refund receipt at the time, puts sold and resisted E; (d) the Defendant’s loss, which caused the receipt in the process, contacted E; and (e) the Defendant’s statement at the court of the lower court, talked with E in the process; (c) even if the Defendant’s statement at the court of the lower court, talked with E in the process of giving lessons to E; and (d) the Defendant did not have any sexual speech and behavior; and (d) the time of the instant case was at least three p.m. on Sundays, the customer service center of Mart was in charge of booming; and (e) there were many employees handling the affairs; and (e) the Defendant’s indecent act or indecent act to receive refund to E even around the Defendant.