A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, but it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement as it is, because it is not consistent with the victim’s statement concerning the content of damage, etc., and because the Defendant’s hand in the bus at the time of the instant case was in contact with the victim’s tam due to the shaking of the bus in a narrow and narrow space, the Defendant did not intentionally commit an indecent act against the victim.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Not on the basis of unreasonable sentencing

Even if the court below's punishment (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim was sleeped by the police at the time of the passage of one course,” and the victim stated to the effect that “The Defendant’s left hand was out of the left part of the Defendant’s body because it is good to see that he continued to be slick, and so he was slick,” and the court of the court of the court below stated to the effect that “The Defendant was slick about the rear part of the bank, but he became slick,” and “I am slick,” and “I am slick about the right part of the victim’s body, and I am slick, I am slick about the victim’s body, and I am slick at the time of the victim’s oral act.”