A. The Defendant was merely scood with the victim’s scooter’s scoo and did not commit indecent acts by compulsion, such as written in the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In this case, it is important to determine the credibility of the victim's statement that the defendant was forced to make indecent acts by force.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim's statements are believed to be true.

① Around March 2014, the Defendant had been operating the instant child welfare facility along with a pastor, and around March 2014, with the knowledge of the fact that the victim was raising a her son as a recipient of basic living security, he/she had the victim work at the said child welfare facility, taking into account the fact.

Although the victim want to continue to work at a child welfare facility of this case, the victim was retired from office on the day following the crime of this case.

② Considering the occupation of the Defendant, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, there seems to be no reason to care for the fact that the victim is an indecent act by force that may cause serious harm to the Defendant who is a pastor.

It is more so in view of the fact that the victim suffered disadvantage after the crime of this case.

(3) Any part of the specific contents of the indecent act committed by the Defendant in the victim’s statement cannot be found in violation of the empirical rule.

Considering the shape, structure, operation status, etc. of scooter, the behavior stated in the facts charged in the instant case cannot be seen as impossible as the Defendant’s assertion.

(4) The aggrieved person shall be at the place of text.