All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, under the agreement with the victim, committed an act of entering the facts constituting the offense as stated in the judgment below; and (b) the Defendant did not force

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the forced indecent act is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of lectures to treat sexual assault) is too unreasonable.

In light of the prosecutor's misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part) victim's statement, etc., the defendant had exercised the force to suppress victim's resistance at the time of committing the crime and started to implement the crime of rape.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty of attempted rape and found the defendant guilty of forced indecent act on the ground that it erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of forced indecent act, taking into account the following circumstances:

「① 피고인이 사건 당일 승용차 안에서 피해자에게 입을 맞추고, 피해자의 상의와 브래지어를 걷어 올리고 피해자의 왼쪽 가슴을 부위를 만지고 입으로 빤 사실은 인정된다.

② Although the Defendant stated that he did not commit the above act against the victim’s will, according to the recording of the recording file submitted to the court of the original instance after the institution of the prosecution, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant continued to have the victim’s chest regardless of the victim’s intention of refusal (16 pages). (3) The victim made a consistent statement from the police investigation to the court of the original instance on the grounds of the damage.