The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (1) misunderstanding of the victim E’s residential intrusion, forced indecent act Defendant’s act did not open and intrude by using the key to the door set forth in Daudio 32 at the time when the victim E resides (hereinafter “the instant studio tele”). In addition, he did not start and intrude into the door, and E voluntarily opened a door.

E Considering E as his/her husband and wife, he/she can easily string his/her shoulder with his/her hands, and she merely strings his/her shoulder with his/her fingers, and it is not forced to put him/her into force. Therefore, there was no assault or intimidation without any intention to engage in inferred conduct.

(2) In order to verify the state of the instant studio distribution in the instant room room room room room room room room room room room 40, which the victim F resided, with the victim F, there was no intention to intrude into a house, and such act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the business or social rules.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of intrusion, forced indecent act, and attempted intrusion on the instant residence based on the statements made by the victim E and F, thereby misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine on assault and unlawful act in the crime of forced indecent act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the illegal defendant in sentencing is old and has difficulty in economic situation, the defendant was subject to a death sentence against the victims, and the victims did not want the punishment against the defendant, the sentence of the court below which sentenced the order to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 7 million won and 40 hours is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is possible based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.