All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim E as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., a fine of 6 million won) sentenced by the court below is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, since it can sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

1) The victim made several statements from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and made a very concrete and detailed statement about the damage that is difficult to make a statement, either the person who has experienced directly in the specific contents and the situation of the indecent act by compulsion, or the person who has experienced in the situation before and after the court of the court below. The main statement that the defendant was present next to the defendant, and the part of the victim's am am am am am am am am am am am am am. 2) is consistent with the victim's statement since the defendant made a detailed statement in the investigative agency

3) The police officer G, who was called immediately after the instant case, stated that the Defendant was forced to commit an indecent act by duplicating the victim at the time of the first call, and that the Defendant was forced to duplicated only once. 4) However, the investigation agency stated that the Defendant was bucking out in the process of plucking, plucking, and plucking up the F’s arms at the time of the instant case, and that the Defendant re-supposed after the locking. However, in the court of the lower court, the lower court stated that the Defendant was bucks and bucks and bucks, and that the Defendant was suped once and bucked, and that the Defendant was bucked twice.