The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the legal doctrine, merely engaged in the act of blocking the victim’s handphones over two times because it is difficult to see the post-scopon due to the victim’s Handphones, and did not intentionally commit indecent act.

Even if there was an act like the facts charged

Even though the mere act of taking grandchildren is likely to constitute sexual harassment under the civil law, it cannot be viewed as a forced indecent act under Article 298 of the Criminal Act.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the sentence of two years of suspended execution in August, the community service order of 160 hours and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the crime of indecent act by force of the relevant legal principles includes not only the other party's indecent act after the other party made it difficult to resist by assault or intimidation, but also the case where the body of the person of assault is deemed to be an indecent act. In this case, assault does not necessarily require the degree of suppressing the other party's will. The act of assault refers to an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public objectively and goes against good sexual morality and thus infringing on the victim's sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes it should be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim's intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the occurrence of the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific attitude of the act, objective situation of the act, and sexual morality at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417, Apr. 26, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, the court below held the judgment below.