All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant related to the act described in paragraph 1 of the judgment below (misunderstanding of the facts) is not able to write and rhumbucks for the victim as stated in the facts charged.

2) 원심 판시 제 2 항 기재 행위 관련( 법리 오해) 피고인이 피해자 역시 자신에게 호감이 있는 것으로 착각하여 공소사실 기재와 같은 행위를 한 적은 있으나, 피해자의 거부의사를 확인한 후 즉시 멈췄으므로 피고인의 행위가 강제 추행에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence to the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. 1) Examining the Defendant’s assertion in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court committed an indecent act against the victim by using and rhing the victim’s bucks as stated in paragraph 1 of the lower judgment on the ground that the lower court’s detailed statement was in detail from No. 3 to No. 6. 1 of the lower judgment.

The ruling of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

2) The crime of indecent act by force (misunderstanding of legal principles) as stated in Paragraph 2 of the decision of the court below includes not only the case where an indecent act is committed after the other party made it difficult to resist by assault or intimidation but also the case where the body of the person who committed the indecent act is deemed to be an indecent act. In this case, the assault is not necessarily required to suppress the other party’s will.

An indecent act means an act that causes a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual moral sense, which infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether an act constitutes an indecent act ought to be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the occurrence of the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of the act, objective situation surrounding the act, and sexual moral sense in that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do958, Sept. 2,