A. In fact, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim C due to the trace of the previous vehicle, and there is only a fact that the part of the Defendant’s distribution was contacted with the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended execution in April, and 40 hours of an order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant is sufficiently recognized as committing an indecent act against the victim C in the electric car, which is the place where the victim is located in public secrecy.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. It is true that the court below stated that the defendant is not superior to the defendant's request for punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant does not seem to have the light of a serious reflective nature, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime on April 7, 2009, despite the same criminal record, which was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the Defendant committed the instant crime. In addition, taking into account the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, health status, criminal record, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.