The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant had an intention to commit an indecent act.

2. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on March 15, 2017, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in front of D on the street in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and was walking on the front side of the Defendant’s proceeding.

In order to reach E (34 years of age), E’s winter was forced to put the two descendants into the inner part of E, and then by drawing the body of E.

3. The judgment of the court below is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant had the intention to commit a criminal act on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, since there is a possibility that the defendant had misunderstanding and causing E to be the wife of the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant was acquitted.

4. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged based on the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, i.e., the Defendant was posted prior to the time of the instant case.

From the following point of view, E and the wife of E and the Defendant: (a) were sprinked by inserting the two fingers in the way of the space; (b) were not similar to each other; and (c) the Defendant was aware of the fact that E and the wife of E were sprinked; and (b) was aware of the fact that E was not his wife, after he became aware of the fact that E was not his wife, he was sprinked immediately to E; and (c) was mistakenly aware of the fact that E was the wife.

Although the defendant clearly stated, he did not make such remarks immediately after he was spared, and rather, he tried to repair and return E and to do so, and the family members of E intended to do so, and the defendant tried to see the father of E who resisted at the time of the instant case and intended to take a bath, and ③ the defendant did not speak that he was mistakenly aware of E at the time of the instant case, and the defendant was erroneous in his wife after receiving a claim from his family members.

In addition, when being investigated by the police on the day of the instant case, the police knew of the fact as its control and did not know of the fact in the future.

On May 7, 2017