A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act with a mistake of facts (1) and with the entries in the facts charged, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim.

(2) The Defendant committed a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a violation of public place for sexual purpose) and the Defendant did not intrude at a public place with a view to meeting the sexual desire of female customers, while making soup a set of time and sending a cell phone with many customers to the extent that they do not enjoy so.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a two-year imprisonment, 40-hours to complete a sexual assault treatment program, and 3-year disclosure notification order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court that the lower court committed an indecent act by mistake of facts (1) and quasi-indecent act, the Defendant’s indecent act by making use of the victim’s resistanceable condition can be acknowledged.

① The victim stated, at the police, that “The victim was in front of the entrance of the water surface, such as earth and sand, and was in front of the entrance of the water surface, and was in front of the lower person, but was asked whether he was in front of the land owner who was in front of the water surface.”

② The wooden P, at the police station, was able to get out of the female sector and male sector before the entrance of earth and sand. However, the Defendant confirmed whether the Defendant was protruding the female sector, and the Defendant continued to observe the sexual distance on the water, while checking whether the Defendant was protruding.

The defendant takes a photograph of his own cell phone by leading up to the fel immediately adjacent to the female, and he was able to use the surrounding part of the female with knee and knee away from around.

“The statement was made to the effect that “........”

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) The lower court duly adopted and investigated the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Infringed Public Places for Sexual Purpose).