The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the attempted indecent act of indecent act of this case among the facts charged in the instant case, even though the Defendant merely took a stude for the victim to know about the victim’s inception at the time of the instant case, and did not have any intention to commit an indecent act of the victim.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (1) the victim's statement to the effect that "the defendant delivered the victim's chest," as a whole, is consistent with the victim's statement to the effect that "the defendant's chest was delivered to the victim's chest," and in the process of trying the victim to punish the defendant's arms, if the defendant's grandchild entered the victim's chest with the victim's chest, it should be deemed as realizing the victim's intent as a whole, and the crime was committed upon the victim's chest. However, the court below acquitted the defendant of indecent act by compulsion, which is the facts charged in the case, of this case,

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether an indecent act by compulsion was committed (the defendant's assertion), the court below's determination that the defendant had an intentional act by indecent act by indecent act was justifiable. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit

(1) The victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court below to the effect that “the Defendant was aware of, and tried to become aware of, the victim by taking advantage of, the victim’s identity” and “the Defendant’s act was committed in order to punish him/her only once,” and thus, it is deemed that the Defendant’s act took place merely in order to become aware of the victim.