The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not constitute an indecent act contrary to the good sexual morality and thus, the act of misunderstanding the legal doctrine did not constitute an indecent act in contravention of the sexual morality and causing sexual humiliation or aversion.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 4 million, an amount of KRW 4 million, an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours, and an order for compensation 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine includes not only cases where the other party commits an indecent act after making it difficult to resist by assault or intimidation, but also cases where the body of the person committing the indecent act is deemed to be an indecent act. In such a case, assault is not necessarily required to suppress the other party’s intent, and as long as the exercise of tangible force against the other party’s will is against the other party’s will, regardless of its power, and an indecent act is objectively against the ordinary public’s sense of sexual humiliation or aversion, and thus, constitutes an infringement on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes such an act shall be determined lawfully by taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship prior to the perpetrator and the victim’s objection, circumstances leading to the act, specific attitude leading to the act, objective circumstances surrounding the act, and sexual morality at that time, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do2416, Apr. 26, 200).