The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The victim E of the indecent act by compulsion of facts (as to the part of the charge), which the Defendant testified as a witness, did not have committed an indecent act from D on February 208, 2008. Also, the testimony of H, I, and J, etc. is hard to believe as it is, and the Defendant did not testify against his memory, but was guilty of this part of the charges, there is an error of law by misconception of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below of unfair sentencing (as to a fine of KRW 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal portion), although some opinions are mixed, the part of the testimony made by the defendant constitutes a case where the whole statement "false facts" is stated as a premise of a certain fact, the judgment of the court below which acquitted a part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts, is erroneous. 2) The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too un

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Whether a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the simple Section of the witness’s testimony (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do1044, Jun. 29, 1993). Where the meaning of the witness’s testimony is unclear or it can be understood in itself or in a multi-dimensional manner, the meaning of the language should be determined clearly after taking into account the following factors: the ordinary meaning and usage of the language; the context before and after the testimony in question was made; the purpose of the examination; the purpose of the testimony in question;

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252 Decided December 27, 2001, etc.).

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant is in the above camp in the instant MT (hereinafter “instant camp”).