The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s on the chest of the victim merely contacted the Defendant’s on the part of the victim, and did not have any intention to commit an indecent act.

With regard to the obstruction of the business of March 7, 2018, the Defendant did not interfere with the business by preventing customers from entering a shop or opening a studio in a shop, etc., although there is a fact that the Defendant took a bath, it did not interfere with the business.

With regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint assault), although the defendant committed an assault against the victim jointly with AK, the victim first threatened all of the electric saw by the victim, so the above act of the defendant constitutes self-defense.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 won, and 40 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant committed an indecent act by force by driving on the victim H's chest as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the court below, and the defendant committed an indecent act by force. The defendant's abusive act by force on the part of the victim H by driving on the part of the victim H's chest as stated in the crime of the court below, and obstructed his duties by opening a studio door in the entertainment tavern operated by the victim N and opening a studio door. The court below did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) According to the evidence examined by the court below as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint violence) by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, the court below committed an assault first, such as killing the victim and the defendant who was a cafeteria, while the defendant was a restaurant with the victim and the defendant attached to it.