1. We reverse the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.

2. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

3. The defendant.

1. The judgment of innocence was rendered at the court below regarding the damage of property, which is the part other than the facts stated in the judgment of this court, within the scope of the judgment of this court, and the prosecutor did not appeal and did not have the object of public defense among the parties. Thus, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed.

Ultimately, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the original judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) The Defendant cannot be punished for the crime of indecent act by compulsion on the ground that the Defendant had no intent to refuse the victim’s bodily injury, and there was an implied consent. 2) As the victim of assault has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant, the Defendant cannot be punished for the crime of assault.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because of its excessive sentencing.

3. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment.

Since the prosecutor filed a motion to change the indictment in exchange for the facts charged at the trial court, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and in particular, H’s investigative agency and court’s statement (which can be recognized as credibility in H’s statement) in the lower court, alleged that the credibility of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court (the Defendant and the defense counsel are not reliable in H’s statement. However, not only the details of the circumstances and circumstances that the victim was forced to commit an indecent act against the Defendant, but also the part that seems to lack reasonable in particular, is not found. As such, the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination is neglected.