The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Although the Defendant’s act, such as the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles), constitutes an indecent act against the victim by intimidation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, acquitted the victim.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor.

For the first time, the prosecutor maintained the facts charged of the previous indecent act by compulsion against the defendant as the primary facts charged, and applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content of adding "the facts of the crime" to the conjunctive applicable provisions of the Criminal Act as the name of the conjunctive crime, and the application for the amendment of the indictment with the same description as the statement in the "the reason for the judgment in which the case was used separately" under the conjunctive charged. The court permitted this.

However, as examined in the following Paragraph 3, this court maintained the conclusion of the court below that acquitted the primary charges. As such, the charges added in the preliminary charges become subject to the judgment of this court, and as seen below, as long as this court found the conjunctive charges guilty, the court below’s judgment that only the previous primary charges can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On May 24, 2018, the Defendant: (a) found the victim C (here 29 years old) in front of the building B in Yancheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 24, 201; and (b) concluded that “Is the victim’s “Is the victim on the upper floor” in front of the victim’s residence located in the building B; and (c) concluded that “Is the victim on the upper floor of B would be able to use the toilet.” Accordingly, Is the victim’s permission.