The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant does not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the original judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of five million won, etc.) is more severe.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is sufficiently recognized in light of the following circumstances after the court below duly adopted and investigated evidence. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The statements of the victim in the court below are consistent.

The defendant tried to contact the victim frequently in his or her residence, etc. or used sexual words to the victim.

According to the relevant record, although the victim did not explicitly indicate a strong displeasure about the defendant's sexual contact attempt, it seems that the victim clearly expresses his/her refusal.

Although the defendant asserts that the circumstance of refusing a victim's request for lending money constitutes a sufficient motive for the victim, in light of the fact that the victim filed a complaint against the defendant after six months or more from the victim, the above circumstance does not seem to have influenced the complaint.

B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.