The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the lower judgment, did not have committed an indecent act against the victim by force.

B. Even if the sentencing was found to be guilty against the Defendant, the sentence imposed by the lower court (the amount of 3 million won, the completion of sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the judgment.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of a case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime, the risk of recidivism, etc., while sentencing punishment for an individual sex offense case by the court, and Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse shall also apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and who have not been finally binding.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, and the following is examined.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Considering the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance trial and the appellate trial based on the spirit of substantial direct deliberation, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

The result of the first deliberation and the appellate court shall be the special circumstances or the results of the examination.