All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not commit an indecent act by force against the victimized person as stated in the facts charged in the instant case No. 756, the lower court which found Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete a program, and 5 years of restriction on employment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant committed each indecent act by force against the victimized person as stated in the lower judgment.

① The victim’s expression of refused will (if he / she gets off his/her hand, conceals his/her hand, conceals his/her hand back, or her hand back to a knicker) by his/her investigative agency to the court of the original trial, including the defendant’s act, method of conduct, contents of the damage, specific place and date of the damage, the victim’s situation at the time of the victim’s death and clothes, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the victim’s response thereto (where he/she gets off his/her hand, her hand back, referring to as “unfortub”), and the victim’s response thereto (where the exaggeration’

The statement on the motive, etc. in which the complaint is filed is consistent with the main part of the criminal facts of the judgment that is considerably specific and consistent to the extent that it is difficult to reorganize unless the actual experience is actually experienced.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the time during which an indecent act by the victimized person was committed, and the statement on the method of prosecution is not reliable because it has been changed according to the defendant's defense.

The time of the indecent act by himself, March 25, 2016, and June 27, 2016.