The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that fluences the victim by pro-Japanese and encouragement intention; (b) in the process fluences the victim’s view; (c) there was no fact that fluences the victim’s injury; and (d) there was no intention to commit an indecent act; (b) Defendant 1 was sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (fine 5 million won, sexual assault treatment program’s order 40 hours); and (c) was excessively unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. The defendant argued that the above argument of mistake of facts is identical to the above argument of mistake of facts, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not justified.

B. We also examine the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the Defendant and prosecutor.

The fact that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and that 4.1 million won has been paid to the victim as consolation money is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the victim, who is merely 22 years of age working for the company operated by the defendant, and committed an indecent act twice in an enclosed space using his position, and the nature of the crime was very poor, and the degree of indecent act that is consistent with the influence of alcohol was not easy, and the victim immediately resigned from the company following the second indecent act by receiving a large mental shock due to the crime of this case, and retired from the company, and mental damage suffered by the victim was very significant. The defendant refused to reach an agreement after the crime of this case, and the victim called the victim.