All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The victim’s statement that he/she suffered from blood transfusion from the instant crime, such as misapprehension of legal principles, is not reliable, and the hole generated from the victim’s loss due to the instant crime does not constitute an injury to the crime of injury resulting from an indecent act by force, which is naturally cured.

2) The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, etc., the lower court acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and in light of this, determined that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim under the influence of alcohol, and that the Defendant sustained injury on the number of days of treatment by causing the victim to have a hole in the victim’s hand, and to have the victim do so in the process.

2) The relevant legal doctrine refers to a change in the victim’s physical health condition and disability caused to his/her life function. If the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and the injured party’s wife does not need treatment, and the injured party’s daily life can be naturally cured upon the lapse of time without treatment, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s physical health condition was changed, or that the injured party’s life function was hindered (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1934, Jul. 23, 2009). 3) Examining the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the injury caused by an indecent act by compulsion is justifiable, and in light of the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.