A. In fact-finding, the Defendant: (a) had the victim lightly known him/her; and (b) had the victim aware of his/her body, caused a fire to him/her; and (c) did not force him/her to commit an indecent act on purpose; or (d) did not interfere with the victim’s chest.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of four million won and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts by specifically explaining the grounds for appeal and the same argument as that of the Defendant.

Examining the records in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant has the intent to commit an indecent act against the victim, and he can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant committed an indecent act by attracting the victim's chests several times in the clothes.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s primary crime is the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the type of force of the Defendant’s use of the victim is relatively somewhat weak.

However, in light of the content and circumstances of the instant crime, the nature of the Defendant’s crime is not good, and the Defendant did not receive an application from the victim until now, and there is no special change in circumstances to determine the punishment differently from the original judgment in the trial.

In addition, in full view of the criminal means and results of the instant crime, all the sentencing factors indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health status, criminal records, and circumstances after the crime, 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.