The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, putting the victim’s name on the part of the victim, and making the victim’s left hand light as he or she seems to have a bad faith and dissipate the victim’s arms, etc.

The defendant's act does not constitute a forced indecent act, and there was no intention to compel the defendant to commit an indecent act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds of the legal principles and circumstances stated in the item “as to the determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”

In full view of the circumstances in the reasoning of the lower judgment admitted by the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant acknowledged all facts charged in the court below's facts, but only argued whether such act constitutes an indecent act by force, and whether the defendant had an intention to commit an indecent act by force (the first trial protocol in the court below), but it seems that there were arguments about some facts in the court below's judgment.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant committed an indecent act against the juvenile as stated in the judgment below, so the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

In addition, the defendant is now in the first instance.