The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) of the defendant did not have an intention to commit an offense, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding of facts.

The sentence of the court below is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. On June 2, 2016, the Defendant, at around 23:24, 2016, went through the side of the victim G (n, 24 years old) who called a cell phone and takes a cell phone in front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and went through the victim G (n, s 24 years old). Around June 2, 2016, the Defendant got into the right side of the victim, and came into a part of the victim’s right side, as he gets out from the left side of the victim’s part, leading

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, corrected ex officio “the principal offender” among the facts charged, and recognized the instant facts charged.

(c)

The defendant at the time of the case is found to have had a physical contact between the defendant and the victim since the victim appears to have no reason to dismiss himself/herself due to false facts, although he/she had no accurate memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the case, he/she did not have a intention to conduct the movement.

The argument is asserted.

Therefore, this paper examines whether the defendant had the intention to commit an indecent act.

The burden of proof for the facts charged in a criminal trial shall be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). First, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged.

(i)..