The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts, only put the victim in order to prevent him from going beyond the work by taking a construction tool, and did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the amount of KRW 5 million, the amount of KRW 40 million, and the amount of KRW 40,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s indecent act against the victim, as described in the facts charged, can be acknowledged.

① The victim consistently tried to repair the defect in the gate frame from the investigative agency to the court of original trial. The Defendant saw the gate back from the middle room to the both hand, and saw the gate back to the left hand of the gate. The Defendant saw the gate back to the left hand of the gate.

However, the situation was not absolute in the same situation as brushes or brushes in the tools at the time, even though the brushes or brushes the tools.

The repair of defects must be completed and moved to the entrance room, and the defendant tried to see the lusium from the latter to the two hand.

When we look at the defendant's room, the Dogdog's will have this day unfortunate.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

Such statements can be believed to be specific and natural to the extent that it is difficult for the injured party to make a statement without experience.

② After committing the instant crime, the victim knew to the effect that he was guilty of indecent act from the Defendant to E, who is a person in charge of the customer in the Hague-based relationship with the Defendant, and reported to the police on the following day.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Ex officio determination is made on January 16, 2018.