All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act by force against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a prosecutor) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair. The sentence of the lower court (5 million won in penalty, and 40 hours in completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is deemed to be too uneasy.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: ① The victim has consistently stated the following circumstances, i.e., the victim reported to the investigation agency immediately after the crime, to the court of the lower court, and ② the victim stated to the effect that “it is possible to report” to the Defendant immediately after the crime.

The statement is consistent with the legal statement of the witness E of the court below, and it is consistent with the victim's above statement that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act in the course of acting as an agent because of the victim's transfer of assault to the victim and there was no other damage other than the damage that occurred during acting as an agent, and therefore, it is consistent with the victim's above statement that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act in the course of acting as an agent. ③ Although the victim and E did not coincide with the victim's statement on the process and circumstances of exchange of paper closure between the victim and E, it is not directly related to the crime of indecent act, and the contents of E's statement on this part are somewhat

In light of the fact that the court below found the victim's statement concerning the crime of indecent conduct to be reliable and found guilty of the charges of indecent conduct by force.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. According to the instant argument and records regarding the determination of the illegality of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the prosecutor, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. The defendant, as shown in the ex officio decision-making record on the employment restriction order.