The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) The Defendant was engaged in the elevator to indicate the victim’s reflect on the marina, while driving the elevator’s hand, and there was no fact that the victim’s arms and tacks.

Even if the Defendant had the Defendant’s grandchildren next to the victim’s body in the course of performing such personnel management as above, the Defendant got the victim’s grandchildren.

Even if we do so, the defendant cannot be said to have broken the victim's arms and her butt.

B) The Defendant was engaged in personnel affairs against the victim, and such activities cannot be deemed as an act aimed at the interest of sexual humiliation, stimulating, or satisfaction, and there was no awareness that the Defendant committed an act that may cause sexual humiliation or aversion against the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s act cannot be evaluated as an indecent act.

C) The Defendant’s act of indecent act against the victim, who is a resident of an apartment that had resided at a low level and 16 years of age, was the Defendant’s act of indecent act by force against the Defendant, as the Defendant, on the day when the Defendant was on board the elevator to have his cellular phone. The Defendant was on the day when he was on the day of the instant case, after attending the education completion ceremony of the officer of the son on the day of the instant case.

must not be decent.

D) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of KRW 15 million, an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, first of all, as to whether the Defendant was aware of the victim’s arms and her mack. The lower court duly adopted the Defendant.