The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) On November 28, 2014, the Defendant was only subject to the consent of the victim, and there was no intention to commit an indecent act.

2) On March 12, 2015, the Defendant did not forcibly commit an indecent act against the victim, as stated in the facts charged.

B. The punishment of the lower court is heavy.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence examined by the lower court on November 28, 2014, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged.

The facts that the defendant forced the victim to commit an indecent act can be recognized based on this.

1. At the investigative agency and the court of the court below, the aggrieved party stated that he would have talk about the sex of the defendant while leaving G to obtain company telephone numbers and facsimile numbers on the above date, and that he would have the victim want to be punished for the breast.

At least one time, the lower court held that the lower court held that the lower court held that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the upper left chest and that the lower court held that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the upper chest, thereby exceeding 3 to 4 times.

“.....”

The victim's speech on the method and background of indecent act can be believed in a concrete and consistent manner.

② The Defendant also ruled in the police that “after completing the application for wire telephone service to G, the victim continued to talk about the chest, and the victim was her chest in the elevator when getting underground.”

This end is consistent with the victim's horses concerning the circumstances of the prosecution.

(3) At the time of the aforesaid indecent act, the Defendant consented to the delivery of the victim’s chest.

The argument is asserted.

However, it is difficult to understand in a common sense that it is difficult to say that the victim who has been male-gu is not the delivery of the defendant, and that the victim has consented to the delivery of the baby by considering whether or not he is the baby of the defendant.

(4) The recording record in which the victim recorded a conversation with the defendant is naturally from the point of view that "at that time, he/she must perform a satisfy operation on his/her own (satisfy operation).