The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) of the instant indecent act case (hereinafter referred to as the “original indecent act case”) led to the following injury by inserting a hand on the winter of a woman’s junc in the foregoing manner: (a) the prime jum distance was observed.

At the time of the examination of the original case, the testimony was made as it is.

Since the defendant did not make a false statement contrary to his memory, the verdict of innocence should be pronounced.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Whether the testimony of a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory should be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the mere simple Section of the testimony. In a case where the meaning of the testimony in question is unclear or diversely understood, the meaning of the testimony in question should be clearly determined after considering the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the purpose of the examination, the circumstances leading up to the testimony in question, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252, Dec. 27, 2001, etc.). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly examined and adopted by the defendant, the prosecutor’s “However, he had contacted the victim’s chest at the time of the examination of the witness in question” as stated in the facts charged at the time of the examination of the original case.

【In the question of “Il you can see? Il you can see? Il youl youl youl youl youl youl youl?? Il youl youl youl youl youl youl youl youl youl youl youl you can see?

The situation is the same, so it is brut about women's decentralization, and so reported.

It is recognized that the answer “for example” to the question “” is a fact.

However, the prosecutor's answer to the questions can be understood in a multilateral way, and the attorney's question.