The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, such as the instant facts charged. (2) The lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes for Ex officio Determination provides that where a person who commits a sexual crime is convicted of a conviction (except where the sentence is suspended), an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program shall be issued concurrently for up to 500 hours, barring any special circumstance.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of a fine of KRW 1,00,000 and did not concurrently impose an order to attend a course or order to complete a program ( there is no determination as to special circumstances where an order to attend a course or order to complete a program is not possible). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the necessary concurrent imposition of an order to attend a course or order to complete a program under Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, such as the instant charges.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

1. On October 2013, four months after the occurrence of the instant case.