A. The first original judgment: The punishment sentenced by the first instance court on the defendant's appeal (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Second instance judgment: Defendant and Prosecutor’s appeal 1) Defendant 2: The punishment (including fine 5,00,000, and 40 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) sentenced by Defendant 2 is too large and unreasonable; 2) Prosecutor’s charge of the second instance case, following the misunderstanding of facts as to indecent act by force on the part of chest among the charges of the second instance case, the victim D (the family name, the remaining name, and 27 years old at the time of committing the crime; 27 years old at the time of committing the crime;

(B) According to the statement prepared by the police and the report of occurrence of the case prepared by the police officer around that time, the chest also is written as an indecent act part, and even if other DNA was detected only on the part of clothes as a result of the genetic test conducted by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, it cannot be readily concluded that other person did not have any other parts except the parts above the clothes even if other person was detected only on the part of the clothes, the defendant was found to have committed indecent act by force. Nevertheless, the second instance court acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges by mistake of facts, and acquitted him of this part of the charges.

2. Determination

A. On August 31, 2018, the summary of the Defendant’s crime of the first instance judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing on the judgment of the first instance court is that the Defendant habitually stolen the Defendant’s wallets owned by the victim, which was gameed in the amusement room.

The defendant shows his attitude to reflect the above crime in depth.

The number of crimes above is only one time, and there is no benefit that the defendant acquired.

The defendant has repeated not to repeat the crime.

The above is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, from 191 to 2013, the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment for the same crime nine times, and in particular, the Seoul Central District Court has committed a specific crime in 2013.