The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake of facts, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act with the victim’s grandchildren by means of luth distance, such as as written in the facts charged, and did not attract the Defendant’s shoulder to his/her hands, and there is no fact that he/she exercised any occupational power.

Moreover, doing so is merely an act of indicating the meaning or friendlyness of daily personnel, not an act of causing a sense of sexual humiliation.

However, the lower court convicted the Defendant as to the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program of KRW 40 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, first of all, it is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as follows: (i) the victim was the only employee employed by the Defendant; (ii) the victim was working for the victim at the ordinary office; and (iii) the victim was frequently fluord by the Defendant when there is a consistent work period from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below; (iv) the victim was fluorously fluoring on the way on which the victim was able to take the vehicle at the workplace; and (v) the Defendant stated that he fluordddddly fluordddddddddddddddging the victim, and that he fludddddddddddddged the victim with the victim, and that he fludgddgeddddddging the victim with the victim, and that the Defendant did not order the victim.