All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1 of the facts-finding prosecutor, even though the defendant was found to have delivered the victim's chest as stated in the facts charged in this case, the court below found the defendant guilty only for the indecent act by bringing the victim's chest behind. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the part concerning the victim's chest, which erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the court below against the defendant of unfair sentencing (fine 300,000,000 and 8 hours of order to complete the program) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) It is difficult to view that the date and time of the crime was specified in the facts charged in the instant indictment, and even though the Defendant alleged unspecified facts in the facts charged at the lower court, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged. (2) There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant committed indecent act by force by inducing the Defendant to the police officer at the early October 2013 and the victim during the same month, and on the other hand, at the prosecution from October 2 to October 3, 2013 to April 20, 2013, the Defendant was not able to know at the prosecution about three to four times prior to the latest 10th day of the same month, and there was a fluorous and a fluorous and hyphab.

“The statement” means not only the meaning that the defendant had humbly had the intent of indecent act by compulsion, but also the meaning that the defendant engaged in such act in order to unsatisfly and unsatisfy so. Thus, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion of omission of judgment, the facts charged in this case at the original trial do not specify the date and time of the crime.