The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A summary of the judgment of the court below against the victim (the victim, 52 years of age) who resides in another room in which the victim is accommodated in his house for a long time (the victim's room), ① drinking alcohol together in the victim's room, frightening both chests of the victim into the clothes, frightening on the right side (Indecent act by compulsion), and ② within the above female public toilet, the victim opened and opened the door in the upper side of his house and met both breasts inside the victim's room.

[Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Act by Indecent Act by Indecent Act) was prosecuted. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges and ordered the Defendant to complete a program for treating sexual assault for a period of two and a half years and forty hours.

B. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) With respect to the mistake of facts against the part of indecent act by compulsion of facts, the Defendant only saw the part of the victim's shoulder on several occasions, and did not have the chest. In relation to the part of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent act by compulsion of residence), the Defendant only closed the victim's door without closing the door, and did not have the victim's chest into the part.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's legal action and found the defendant guilty of all the above charges. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The above imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, etc.) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The above imprisonment sentenced by the lower court by the prosecutor (unfair punishment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same assertion in the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, but the lower court based on the legal doctrine on determining the credibility of the victim’s statement, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined.