The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

In addition, the respondent for an attachment order shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

Defendant

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim’s police statement that conforms to the facts charged in this part of the judgment of the court below was made after the indecent act by compulsion, and the victim’s statement was made before the lapse of 12 hours after the indecent act by compulsion, and there is no reason to make a false statement. Thus, the victim’s statement is credibility.

In addition, CCTVs can have a blind spot. Therefore, even if on-site CCTVs did not have a visual recording, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no indecent act by the Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor maintained the facts charged of the previous indecent act in the trial as the primary facts charged, and applied for changes in indictment by adding the name of the crime to "violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act" as "Article 3 (1) 19 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", and the following ancillary facts charged as stated in Article 3 (2) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. This Court permitted this to change the subject matter of the judgment.

However, as seen below, this Court acquitted the Defendant of indecent act by compulsion, which is the primary facts charged, and found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, which is the ancillary facts charged. As such, the part of the lower judgment’s acquittal, which is only the primary facts charged, cannot be maintained, and the crime of bodily injury recognized by the lower court as guilty, should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and therefore the part of the lower judgment’s conviction should be reversed

In addition, the part of the defendant's case is reversed.