A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, mismisunderstanding the Defendant’s attitude

Although the victim made the same remarks, there is no fact that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act as stated in the facts charged, and there is no fact that the victim inflicted an injury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of attending order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserted that the grounds for appeal are similar to the grounds for appeal even in the lower court. The lower court also argued that ① the victim’s statement from the investigative agency to the lower court was consistent and clear, and the description of the situation is consistent with the victim’s statement concerning the main part of the crime from the investigation agency to the court of the lower court, and in addition to the victim’s appearance and attitude in the court of the lower court, the victim’s statement consistent with the facts constituting the crime is reliable; ② the victim’s private person H consistently moved to the Defendant from the investigative agency and the court of the lower court to the effect that he had contact with the victim.

A statement was made that the situation at the time is relatively accurate from a neutral point of view, consistent with the victim’s assertion, and ③ On the other hand, the Defendant was in the second investigation of the police in relation to the crime of forced indecent conduct in this case.

“......” or after the prosecutor’s investigation, there was a little mar between H and the victim’s mar on the fact that her marries

The first statement was reversed, and there is no consistency in the defendant's statement, such as the reversal of the victim's statement at the investigative agency to the effect that it was not sufficient for the victim to go beyond the victim in relation to the crime of injury in this case.