The part of the conviction of the judgment of the court of first instance and the second part of the judgment of the court of second instance concerning the indecent act crime shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (as to the conviction of the lower judgment of the lower court of the second instance) appealed against the first instance judgment, but the Defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal within the submission period of the written reason for appeal, not only did the grounds for objection are not stated in the petition of appeal.

Since then, the defense counsel asserted that the first instance judgment was erroneous by mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing through the statement of reasons for appeal, which was withdrawn on August 4, 2020, but this is not a legitimate ground for appeal since it was raised after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal.

1) The Defendant, under the influence of alcohol at the time, committed an indecent act by a misunderstanding the fact (the part concerning the indecent act by force as indicated in the judgment). Although the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, committed an indecent act by sparing the part of the victim’s neck, he did not contain the victim’s left chest by putting the victim’s neck into the inside of the damaged person’s upper part.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the statement of the victim and witness who is doubtful of credibility. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) Each sentence sentenced to the second instance of an unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles (the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below of the second instance; the indecent act committed on September 14, 2018), the victim may have made a mistake in the course of the testimony of the court below in the course of the trial in the Korean language with Lao origin, which is likely to have made a mistake in the opinion of the court below, the damage statement made by the police immediately after the occurrence of the instant case is more accurate than the testimony of the court below, and the victim has no reason to make a false or exaggerated statement against the defendant, the victim’s statement made by the investigative agency is particularly high credibility.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement on the grounds of lack of consistency, and rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. This decision of the court below is erroneous.