The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 4 million won, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a victim’s statement, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court below found the victim’s testimony guilty of each of the charges of indecent act by compulsion on the ground that the victim’s statement, including the victim’s victim’s and the witness’s statement, is not admissible without permission, unless there exist any separate reliable data that can objectively be objectively deemed objectively deemed consistent and objectively consistent with the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The court below found the victim’s credibility in each of the charges of indecent act by compulsion on the ground of the following circumstances: (a) whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, appearance, or rule of experience, physical evidence, or third party’s statement, and whether it conforms to the witness evidence or third party’s statement in the open court after being sworn before a judge; and (b) whether the victim’s statement is consistent with the victim’s statement, etc.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the court below cannot be deemed to have erred by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim of unreasonable sentencing, the degree and circumstance of the instant indecent act, and the fact that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, the lower court’s sentence is too excessive