The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles only contain a fact that the victim gets less than the neck and scams of the victim in order to attract the victim, and there is no fact that the defendant was in charge of less than the neck and selling of the victim.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act not only did not constitute an indecent act but also did not constitute an indecent act as provided in Article 10(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”), but the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the term “indecent act” in the relevant legal principles means an act objectively causing a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and contrary to good sexual morality, which infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether such act constitutes such an act ought to be carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the offender and the victim prior to the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific manner leading to the act, objective situation surrounding the act, sexual morality, etc. Furthermore, it does not require any subjective motive or objective to stimulate, stimulate, and satisfy sexual humiliation as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s subjective motive or objective was recognized to have been reduced by several times as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant’s subjective motive or objective was sold to the Defendant at the time.