The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the defendant has the right to face one time in a timely manner, and there was no intention to commit indecent act.

The Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an indecent act in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant, as an educator, is responsible for giving lessons to students who are not good in class; (b) the student was taking lessons at an open place at the time of the instant case; and (c) the victim stated to the effect that he was bad and fake at the time of the instant case’s act of shouldering himself.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on indecent act by compulsion and by misapprehending the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also argued that “the Defendant did not commit any indecent act against the victim in connection with the facts charged in the instant case and did not have the intent to commit an indecent act against the Defendant,” which is similar to the trial court to the effect that “the Defendant did not have the intent to commit an indecent act against the victim,” which can be known by the record. Accordingly, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in determining that the Defendant’s act constituted sexual humiliation or aversion, and constitutes indecent act against good sexual morality, and that there was an intentional act against the Defendant. (A) The victim’s assertion that there was an intentional act against the Defendant. (b) The victim stated consistently at an investigative agency that “the Defendant was a female student of the middle school where the Defendant was working as a school teacher at the time when the victim was a child of 14 years old at the time, and that there was no other means to protect the victim’s body, as the victim could have broken without the victim’s return.”