The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts, the court below convicted the victim D of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant had no intention to make physical contact with the victim D with the intent to commit indecent act by force, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment for eight months, the suspension of execution two years, the community service order 120 hours, the order to attend 40 hours, the employment restriction order three years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court also asserted that the Defendant is identical to the allegation of mistake of facts.

However, the court below stated to the effect that ① the victim’s statement is very specific and natural and consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, as well as consistent with the CCTV images of the main point of this case at the time, and ② the main point of this case also returned to the court of the court below that “The victims were able to find the victim’s table because the defendant was absent at the time, and she became the defendant, and the victims came to go back to the court of the court below because she was said to go to be the subject of taxation. Since the victim D was able to get out of the opening, it was the victim’s complaint by sexual indecent act while she was “the defendant was only the defendant,” ③ even if the defendant was partially unsatisfying about whether the victim D’s vessel was delivered, this circumstance alone makes it impossible to deny the credibility of the victim’s statement in whole, ④ because the defendant’s indecent act was committed, and thus, the victim’s statement was naturally confirmed from the CCTV victim’s statement.