A. There is no fact that the victim committed an indecent act as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as a mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of three million won and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 24 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that the victim’s statement consistent with the facts stated in the judgment was credibility, by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances. ① Even though the victim’s statement in the court and the investigative agency is not accurately consistent with the victim’s statement, the victim consistently states that “the victim visited his house for TV repair, and her chest was delivered by inserting her hand in her clothes,” the victim’s statement is consistent. ② The disagreement asserted by the Defendant is about the specific circumstances and frequency of indecent acts. However, the victim made a statement in a somewhat subdivided manner in the court, and the investigative agency stated that “the victim did not release liver during the period of warning, and there was no specific and distinct statement,” both the Defendant and the victim stated that the victim stated that “the victim should only be aware of misunderstanding of facts,” but all of the victim’s statements in the investigative agency are consistent with the victim’s statement that “the victim’s act of indecent acts should not be able to understand that there was any inconsistency with the victim’s statements in the court.”

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Unreasonable sentencing.