All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not interview the victim’s chest over two occasions.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 8 million, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the Defendant’s indecent act by deceiving the victim’s chest twice as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) The victim is relatively specific and consistent in the investigative agency and the court below’s decision that made a statement about the background of the victim’s chest, the form and frequency of the specific act.

② Unlike the first investigative agency statement in the court of the court below, the victim stated that the defendant placed his hand twice in his clothes (70 pages of the trial record) unlike the first investigative agency statement in the court of the court below (the defendant first, the clothes, and the next ones, the clothes), and that the chest was delivered (70 pages of the trial record). However, at the time of the arrival of the part, the victim was suffering from the sofes, and the part that his memory was either terminated or somewhat distorted after the lapse of time, and the part that the memory was profesd or distorted, all of which are sent to the clothes.

The statement of the first investigative agency is more appropriate than the statement of the investigative agency.

In light of the fact that Jinish (the trial record No. 77,82) is conducted, and the fact that the statement of important part that the Defendant sent the victim’s chest twice is inconsistent or inconsistent, it is difficult to deny the credibility of the victim’s statement.

B. It is more favorable that the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal history, as to the determination of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor.

On the other hand, the damage is recovered without recognizing his mistake.