The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal - misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have committed any indecent act by force against D, who was a subordinate employee, on the spot. Even if there was a physical contact with the Defendant, it is not attributable to the intent of indecent act. 2) There is only the testimony of D and H’s statement, which was a friendly friende of D, consistent with the facts charged, as evidence consistent with the facts charged, there is no consistency or inconsistency in the above statements themselves.

Rather, the statements of other workers who had been in a revolving with D are in conflict with D or H's statements, such as the statements and letters of other employees who divided into D.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the sole basis of the testimony of D or H without credibility, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of indecent act by compulsion. However, even if the Defendant was guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment with labor for April suspension, one hundred and twenty hours of community service order, and forty hours of attendance order for sexual assault treatment is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime

1) The key issue of the instant case is whether the victim D and witness H’s statement that correspond to the facts charged are reliable. 2) In determining the credibility of the victim’s statement that supports the facts charged, the court is not only in compliance with the reasonableness, logic, logic or rule of experience of the content itself, but also with the testimony or testimony of a third party, but also is open to the public after being sworn in front of a judge.