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. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's grandchildren contact the part of the victim's sexual organ, but there is no fact that the defendant intentionally commits an indecent act against the victim.

The reason why the victim was mistaken for F, and the victim was clearly aware of what place F, but the victim was unaware of the fact that F, F, or F, was never aware.

The victim's statement is stated in the court below, and the victim's appearance in the court room after receiving a decision on the fine for negligence, which seems to be due to the fact that the victim's excessive act that began by misunderstanding is attributable to the burden of him/her due to the judgment.

If a victim was in an impossible state of resistance, the victim was in an impossible state of resistance because it is difficult to find out only one time of the victim's sexual organ with the victim's sexual organ.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, Articles 299 and 298 of the Criminal Act are not applicable to the defendant, and Article 298 of the Criminal Act is not applicable to the defendant since the defendant did not commit violence or intimidation against the victim.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of an indecent act committed against the Defendant, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment ex officio. The prosecutor applied the applicable law to change the name of the crime in the case of forced indecent act in the court below to “voluntary indecent act” as “voluntary indecent act,” and applied law to “Article 299 and Article 298 of the Criminal Act,” respectively. Since the subject of the judgment in this case was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant intentionally saw the victim’s sexual organ.