A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts is well-known in the public book, and there was a fact that the victim’s shoulder was twice twice, and there was no forced indecent act due to the victim’s salivation as stated in the lower judgment, such as the crime in the lower judgment.

The victim's statement is not reliable because the victim's victim's mistakes the situation at the time, and there is a possibility that the defendant made a wrong statement that the victim forced to commit an indecent act.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the basis of the victim's statement is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is too uneasible to the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail by stating the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower court’s judgment, and comparing the judgment with the evidence examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, there were no errors of misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to each of the unfair arguments of sentencing by Defendant and the prosecutor, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and in the event that the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive in full view of the reasons for sentencing revealed during the pleadings in the instant case.