All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in the crime of indecent act under Article 298 of the Criminal Act, on August 23, 2016, on the ground that: (a) the act of taking the victim into custody by getting on the string of a taxi operated by the injured person and using and rhing the victim’s shoulder with left hand; (b) thereby causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public objectively; and (c) cannot be deemed as an act contrary to the good sexual moral sense, and thus, cannot be deemed as an act infringing upon the victim’s sexual freedom; and (d) thereby, it does not constitute “influence.”

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million, and 40 hours after completing the sexual assault treatment program) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the term “act of misunderstanding the legal doctrine” objectively causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it is so determined ought to be carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the injured party prior to the occurrence of the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific manner leading to the act, objective situation surrounding the act, sexual morality of the time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do52, Apr. 16, 2004). According to the evidence duly adopted at the lower court and duly examined by the Defendant, such as the statement of the police statement against the victim in the police statement at the police station located in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on Aug. 23, 2016, the Defendant completed a meeting at a restaurant located in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and then at least 20:50 on the same day, the Defendant used the above taxi to the right of the victim’s.