All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) In regard to Defendant (1)’s act of indecent act by force under paragraph (6) among the facts constituting the crime No. 4518, which was decided by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant was engaged in an indecent act by force against the victim F.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (10 months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charge of attempted larceny, although it was found that the prosecutor (1) was guilty of attempted larceny based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1).

(2) Improper sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the Defendant alleged the above facts, and the lower court has sufficiently credibility in light of the following: (a) the victim’s statement on damage to it is consistent with the contents of the victim’s statement from the investigation agency to the court; (b) the details of the witness’s major contents are consistent; and (c) the victim’s and W’s statement are consistent with the main contents of

The judgment of conviction is judged to be guilty.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts that affected the judgment.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake, the lower court: (a) acknowledged by the record, stated the following circumstances; (b) in particular, R showed only the Defendant’s entry into one’s own vehicle parked, and did not witness the Defendant’s moving of the goods or hand over the goods in the said vehicle; (c) there was no article left in the said vehicle; and (d) there was only a person driving around the said vehicle parked, and R et al. was parked, and the said vehicle and the Defendant’s act were parked.