The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the facts charged in the judgment of the lower court, the Defendant (guilty in the judgment of the lower court) stated in the first instance trial that “the date and time of the commission of the offense, November 24, 2016,” which is the date of the offense as stated in the facts charged, was clerically written in the facts charged. In the initial statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant asserted that “the date and time of the commission of the offense, were not specified,” but the Defendant withdrawn the said assertion on the date and time of the first trial

This Court corrected the date of crime to November 24, 2016 in the following "the reasons for the ruling which was written in multiple ways".

In this part of the facts charged, since it is not clearly specified whether the defendant committed an indecent act by any means on the part of the victim's body, this part of the indictment should be dismissed.

2) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not have the victim’s bucks and drinking parts as stated in this part of the facts charged. Even if such physical contact occurred, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit indecent acts by compulsion. The victim’s statement on this part of the facts charged is not consistent with the main part, and the victim’s statement on this part is not reliable to the extent that the court below acquitted the victim of some indecent acts. Nevertheless, the court below convicted the victim of this part of the facts charged by reliance on the victim’s statement. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. (B) The prosecutor (the victim of misunderstanding of facts on the part of the verdict of innocence in the original trial from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the first instance) is consistent and specifically stated on November 24, 2016 as to the fact that the victim was by indecent acts in front of the Defendant’s office and the fact that the Defendant was by indecent acts by compulsion within the Defendant’s office.

Nevertheless, the lower court, among the victim’s statements, committed indecent acts by force.