The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit any act that causes sexual humiliation.

B. Improper sentencing: 4 million won, 40 hours, and order to complete a program

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the statement made by the victim, consistent with the facts charged, is consistent with the victim’s statement; (b) the victim has stated the facts of damage to the representative of the company prior to the retirement of the company; (c) the victim was able to obtain the details of the victim’s late accusation; and (d) the Defendant also recognized the fact that the victim was frighted; and (c) the victim stated that “the victim was subject to numerical distress and stress even if the Defendant was frighted; and (d) the victim stated that he was frighten and stress; and (e) the statement made by the employee as seen consistent with the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to be reliable as it is; and (e) the Kaka Stockholm message sent by the Defendant

The decision was determined.

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, there is no reasonable ground to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

B. We examine the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, the degree of contact, and the fact that there is no letter from the victim, etc. falls under the circumstance of the defendant's responsibility. However, repeated repeatedness between workers, which led to the defendant's excessive occurrence, and the defendant sent a letter message to the victim around January 2019, and there has been no record of criminal punishment for the past, and the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act are added.