The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles on the following grounds:

1) In light of the victim’s social status, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have exercised occupational authority. (2) The Defendant merely kidddd the victim’s right to be drunk in the IC, but did not appear as indicated in the facts charged. The above act was committed by the victim’s free will, and thus does not constitute an indecent act.

3) The Defendant does not in itself commit an indecent act against the victim in the neighboring road of K Station and in the neighboring road of L Station, as stated in the facts charged. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, community service, 120 hours, and 40 hours of taking the sexual assault treatment lectures is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion that there was no occupational force means sufficient force to suppress the victim's free will. Since it is not tangible or intangible, it is possible to use social, economic and political status or authority as well as assault, threat, and it is also possible to use social, economic and political status or authority. In this case, power does not require actual suppression of the victim's free will. In this case, it is not necessary to control the victim's free will. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the indecent act means that it causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and goes against the good moral sense (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2506, Jan. 23, 1998).