The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the defendant inevitably sits together with the victim in a narrow place, and the defendant's arms became in contact with the victim's chest part, not the defendant's indecent act.

In addition, the defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, but did not commit an indecent act on the part of the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the ground of the Defendant’s partial statement as evidence, and erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on indecent act.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. On March 18, 2016, the victim made a statement on the part that the part of the victim's chest was unfolded or subdivided with the defendant's arms and elbows by dividing the damage as stated in the facts charged of this case into the primary damage around 22:00 on March 18, 2016 and the secondary damage around 22:30 on the same day when the police investigation conducted.

At the time of the victim's first damage, the defendant, who was sitting on the left side of the victim, had sicked with the shoulder and the arms.

“The police statement,” and “the Defendant was pushed down with buckbucks and expected the body as body in the body.”

In the upper part of the defendant's right arms, the chest was divided into the upper part of the defendant's upper part, and it was thought that it was a little sexual indecent act.

There was a sense that she is genome and brue.

“The fact of damage was stated to the effect that the Defendant was not intentionally engaged in the said conduct, when examining the facts of damage (see, e.g., the lower court’s protocol of examination of witnesses) and CCTV video CDs (Evidence No. 13), it is doubtful as to whether the Defendant was seated above the victim’s side.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence examined by the court below, the above defendant's act is justified.