The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (guilty in the judgment of the court below) 1) In relation to the mistake of facts or misrepresentation of public official qualifications, the Defendant’s act did not have the appearance of a police officer’s ex officio exercise. With regard to each forced indecent act, the Defendant did not write and rhym the I’s sexual organ with the intent of committing an indecent act. In relation to the larceny against J, the Defendant did not steal KRW 110,000 in cash owned by J, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for one year and 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. On the basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant could have intentionally taken A Q Q’s B body against his/her will by using a mobile phone camera function and committed an indecent act using a mobile phone impossible condition, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2) Improper sentencing (the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below) (the completion of the sexual assault treatment program at least 1 year and 40 hours) imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. According to the evidence cited by the lower court, such as I, J, and H’s testimony on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, while misrepresenting himself as a police officer at the time of the instant case, conducted a physical search belonging to the police officer’s authority at the time of police officer I and J, and during that process, took up not only the Defendant’s sexual organ against I’s will but also KRW 110,00 in cash on the wall of J.

The defendant's act is a misrepresentation of public official's qualification.