All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) committed an indecent act by a dental doctor; (b) the background leading up to the Defendant’s appearance toward the victim’s chest; (c) the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant case; (d) the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant case and the victim’s act; and (e) the case was very apparent, the Defendant’s act of indecent act was committed on the part of the victim; and (e) the instant case was committed on the part of the victim’s chest; (c) the Defendant did not have the intent

B. In full view of the police officers of the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts (1) and the victim’s statements at the court below’s court, and the results of reproduction of CCTV video CDs, the defendant could be found to have committed an indecent act by forcing the victim to use the victim’s chest once by hand as stated in the facts charged in this case, but the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged and sentenced the defendant guilty of the attempted indecent act. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence (3 million won in penalty, 40 hours in order to complete the course) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Based on the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, namely, ① the Defendant made a statement at the police and the prosecutor’s office to the effect that “the Defendant: (a) viewed the victim’s chest to have diminished, thereby fixing the name tag; and (b) according to the Defendant’s statement, it is sufficient that the Defendant was able to see the victim’s chest or to act to have the name tagd; (c) however, it was sufficiently sufficient for the Defendant to see the victim’s chest or to act to have the victim go against the victim’s chest (the same shall apply).