The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victims as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

The only direct evidence of the facts charged of this case is the statements of the victims, and the statements of the victims are contrary to objective facts or contradictory, and there is no consistency and credibility.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the probative value, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below held that ① the main part of the victim’s statement that the victim had committed an indecent act from the defendant is consistent and specific from the investigative agency to the court in the court, ② the victim F made a statement that the victim F was damaged by the second indecent act at the investigative agency and court, and the second indecent act at the latest time after the occurrence, and requested the J to change the following, this corresponds to the J’s legal statement. ③ The victims took 10 months after the victim retired, and 1 year or more from the date of the occurrence of the case, and around July 2018 after the lapse of 10 months from the date of the occurrence of the case, the victims did not file a complaint, but it appears that the victims did not have been aware of disadvantage within the workplace or their husband, and even if so-called “Muran case” in 2018, the victim F did not have any conflict between the defendant and his employees to prevent them from repeating the same act.