The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty on the part of the victim's leg because the defendant's hand was fluor in a misunderstanding bus of mistake of facts and did not have an intention to commit an indecent act or an indecent act against the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, despite the fact that the instant case constitutes an indecent act at a public smuggling place under Article 13 of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Act”).

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (the fine of three million won and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the statements made by witnesses, including the victim, are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, and conforms to the facts charged, they shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any separate and reliable materials to deem the credibility objectively and objectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005). In addition, the term “indecent act” is objectively an act contrary to the generally accepted sense of sexual morality and thus infringing upon the victim’s sexual freedom. The determination of whether it constitutes such act ought to be made with caution by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, and the victim’s sexual moral sense, etc. In addition, the subjective motive or purpose of inducing, promoting and sufficient sexual desire as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion is not required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do53826, Sept. 26, 2013).