A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of an indecent act against the victim even though the Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force.

B. Even if the conviction of an unreasonable sentencing is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (including a fine of 5 million won, 40 hours’ order to complete a program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts reveals that circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the statements made by the victim’s investigative agency and court at the lower court are considerably consistent with the overall and consistent, ② the statements made by E investigation agency at the time or by F in the lower court at the time, the victim committed an act of hiding the victim, including E or F, after the occurrence of the instant case, and immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, the victim informed the Defendant of the indecent act at the workplace. ③ G stated in the lower court that the Defendant did not have an opportunity or situation to fit the victim, ③ all E, G, and F present at the court of the lower court did not view that the Defendant was fit for the victim. However, even according to the victim’s statement, even if the Defendant had a certain distance from the victim’s own accord with the victim, it was very short time that the Defendant was the victim’s end in the future, and that the Defendant did not have any previous behavior in the front and rear condition.

(4) The Defendant is under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, solely on the ground that there is no person with a dance level.