The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

1. Although there was a fact of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles by the Defendant, booming the victim’s booming expenses was committed while getting off in the subway, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit an indecent act, and the above act is merely an assault.

2. The Defendant was in an insane or insane condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

3. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 2,00,00,00 and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for forty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (i) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles include not only the case where the other party commits an indecent act after making it difficult to resist by causing violence or intimidation against the other party, but also the case where the act of assault itself is recognized as an indecent act. In this case, as long as the use of force against the other party’s will is not necessarily required to suppress the other party’s will, it does not necessarily require that the assault is against the other party’s will, and as long as it is exercised against the other party’s will, it is objectively against the other party’s will, regardless of its power, the indecent act causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public, and infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes it should be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the other party’s prior to the occurrence of such act, the circumstances leading to such act, specific

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417 delivered on April 26, 2002, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Doll court of the original trial and the court of the trial, i.e., the victim consistently stated at the investigative agency that “the defendant was her her her tampt with the victim’s her tampt until the court of the trial in the original instance.”