Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 16, 2005, the Defendant did not intentionally cause physical contact to the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, with respect to the indecent act by force around July 16, 2005.

In addition, even if there is a certain physical contact, it is excessive that the accident occurred in a narrow vehicle where a slope was stopped in a considerable place, and considering the relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to such accident, the circumstances leading to the physical contact, and the victim's speech and behavior after the physical contact, the victim's implied consent or presumed consent is recognized, so the victim's physical contact does not constitute an indecent act.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. As to the indecent act by force around July 2, 2005, the prosecutor 1 consistently states that the victim made a key from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, as shown in this part of the facts charged, and in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (two years of imprisonment with labor and one-year suspended sentence) imposed by the court of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. In light of the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the relevant legal principles, the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.