All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim by mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

In addition, at the time of the instant case, the victim had already expressed his/her intention to resign and had already been scheduled to retire. Thus, the status of the defendant cannot be said to be a sufficient force to suppress the victim's free will.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and forty hours of lecture for sexual assault treatment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial based on the spirit of the substantial direct trial principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of an additional examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial ends, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In addition, the appellate court shall not readily deny the credibility of the statement solely on the ground that there is a lack of somewhat consistent consistency in the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial when it is consistent with the main part of the statement made by the witness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). The circumstances duly adopted by the lower court based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier and the evidence duly examined by the victim, namely, the circumstances at the time of the instant case, the victim’s statement made at the time of the instant case.