All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 was guilty of a mistake of facts in order to keep the victim from the wind, and there was no fact that the victim was spared, and this does not constitute an indecent act, and even though the Defendant did not have the intent to commit an indecent act, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous of misconception of facts that affected the judgment. 2) The punishment of the court below of unfair sentencing (fine 15 million won) sentenced by the court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable because it is too uneasible and unfair. 2) There is no special circumstance that does not disclose or notify the illegal accused of exemption from disclosure or notification order, and the lower court’s failure to issue an order of disclosure or notification for the prevention of re-offending in light of the Defendant’s personality and conduct, etc., even though

2. Determination

A. “Indecent act” as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts refers to objectively causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes such act ought to be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship before the offender and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, objective situation surrounding the society, sexual morality, etc. Furthermore, the lower court does not require any subjective motive or purpose to stimulate, arouse, and satisfy the sexual desire as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). The lower court clearly stated that the victim’s statement was made by the police that the Defendant would have suffered from the victim’s view, the overall circumstances and detailed circumstances are not specific and contradictory, and CCTV at the site of the instant case.