All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant (Misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles) did not commit an indecent act by force, such as dancing with the victim as stated in the facts charged, or drinking the victim’s chest.

B. Determination of sentencing by prosecutor and police officer (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of taking sexual assault treatment lectures)

A. In the trial process of the appellate court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a conviction, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous

In a case where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the determination on fact-finding in the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant is identical to the grounds for appeal. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s statement was very specific and consistent, and that the Defendant and the victim’s text messages and Kakakao Stockholm messages sent and received on the day of the instant case and after the instant case also conform to a certain part of the victim’s statement, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair as it is against logical and empirical rules, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. Determination of the Prosecutor’s argument of sentencing and light.