The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts, the victim’s statement in the instant case was inconsistent or reversed with the important circumstances, and there are many circumstances suspected of having credibility, and the victim showed an attitude that is difficult to accept in light of the empirical rule.

In this regard, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges of indecent conduct in the instant case by rejecting the credibility of the victim’s testimony, the remainder of reliance on only the victim’s statement, objective circumstances at the time, or E’s testimony given by the Defendant, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges of indecent conduct in the instant case based on the legal doctrine that “In cases where the body of a person who committed assault is recognized as an indecent act, the crime of indecent conduct is established” but the foregoing legal doctrine cannot be applied in cases where the exercise of tangible force is continued as shown in the instant facts charged. Therefore, the instant facts charged per se does not constitute the crime of indecent conduct.

3) The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (or four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of sexual assault treatment lectures) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor prior to the determination of ex officio.

In the case of an indecent act in the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied the law to "violation of Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes", and applied law to "Article 298 of the Criminal Act", "Article 10 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes", and applied for amendments to an indictment to change the facts charged as follows. Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.