All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts merely filled the rear side, such as the victim’s shoulder and her shoulder, in order to attract the victim, and even though there was no fact that the victim’s chest, her elel, and her long times with his intent of indecent act by compulsion, the lower court recognized the instant charges based only on the victim’s statement that was not directly examined by the investigation agency. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s allegation of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 20 million) which the lower court sentenced to the allegation of unfair sentencing by

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant brought an objection to the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court under paragraph (2), acknowledged the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim, such as the facts charged in the instant case.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a close comparison with the records, it is recognized that the above judgment of the court below is justifiable, and in particular, if the victim did not have any motive or reason to mislead the defendant until the victim made a false statement, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is deemed to have committed indecent act by force against a female under the age of 19 who has mental disability, and the nature of the crime is poor, and the victim seems to have suffered a considerable impact and pain on the mental health. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not seem to seriously reflect the crime of this case without denying it, and it is with the victim.