The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant misunderstanding of facts makes a talk with the victim.

Although there are less arms of the victim, there is no fact that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act as shown in the judgment of the court below, and there is a fact that the victim was only the victim.

Even if the defendant did not have the intention of indecent act by compulsion, there was no intention.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and forty hours of an order to attend sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.

C. It is unreasonable for the lower court to impose an order of disclosure and notification to the Defendant for three years.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court made the instant trial procedure as a participatory trial, and the jurors were given a verdict of innocence with respect to the facts charged in this case, and the lower court rendered a verdict of conviction with the jury’s opinion different from that of the jury. Although the jury’s verdict does not bind the court (Article 46(5) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials, the participatory trial is a democratic system that enables the jury representing the general public to directly judge and decide the facts and to reflect citizens’ sense and value in the trial by making a decision, and is a system that can further realize the basic principles of the trial procedure, such as the trial-oriented principle, oral argument principle, and concentrated trial system, the opinions presented to the full bench as to the recognition of facts should be respected as a matter of course.

On the other hand, Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be based on the free evaluation of evidence by a judge is suitable for the discovery of substantial truth. Thus, a fact-finding judge who has a prior right to the determination of evidence shall consider the perception obtained in the trial in fact-finding and the evidence investigated in the trial without any further consideration.