The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

No. 1, 2, and 3 of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the indecent act by force of mistake of facts, the victim was not locked, but was aware of his consciousness, and thus, the victim was not in an incompetuous state, and the act was committed with the consent of the victim, and thus, the indecent act was not forced.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year, ten months, confiscation, 3160,000 won additional collection, and 24 hours to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a business owner of “C”, and the victim D (n, 20 years old) is a part-time student of the said business establishment.

On November 18, 2016, 22:00, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim, such as drinking the victim, who was pregnant at the 3rd floor above Dong-gu building E-dong-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with the difficulty of avoiding the victim, by forcing him to commit an indecent act against the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by taking advantage of the state of impossibility of resistance that the victim is deep away.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged based on the evidence adopted by the lower court.

(c)

1) In a criminal trial, recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the level of conviction as above, determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487 Decided April 28, 201). In particular, if the defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the victim’s statement is practically only the victim’s statement based on direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in the record, the conviction is recognized on the basis of the victim’s statement.