The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit indecent act by compulsion against the victim D or assault the victim E (hereinafter “E”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of community service order, 120 hours, 40 hours of attending lectures for the treatment of sexual assault, 3 years of employment restriction orders) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment after its ex post facto and ex post facto determination, even though there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of documentary evidence in the course of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In addition, where a witness’s statement is generally consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that the witness’s statement conforms to the facts charged objectively and objectively lacks credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In the lower court, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal. The lower court, from an investigative agency to the lower court, the Defendant stated that “D was frightd of the victim’s son’s son’s son, who followed it, and that the victim’s son’s statement was consistent and consistent with the CCTV.