The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The factual basis of the facts charged by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine itself is recognized, but such fact alone does not constitute a sex offense.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won in punishment, and 40 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant intruded into public toilets for the purpose of satisfaction of sexual humiliations is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

1. The victim discovered that the Defendant was replaced by another person in the next partitions of the female toilet on the first floor of the B building after the work, and then sent the name of the victim to the investigative agency.

“The statements are made specifically and specifically.”

② The Defendant stated on the date of the first trial of the lower court that he made a confession of the instant facts charged, and there is no special circumstance to deem the said confession as false.

③ Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that a sex offense was not established for the first time, that is, the Defendant did not have a sexual purpose, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept in full view of the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant himself was aware of the form of the victim, which is viewed as a melting side in female toilets, and (b) the victim’s statement, response to the victim at the time, and the Defendant’s behavior, etc.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the defendant did not have the same criminal record as the defendant in determining the unfair argument of sentencing.

However, there is no change in circumstances after the decision of the court below, such as the fact that this case intrudes into women's toilets and steals the appearance of women's tolerance, and that the nature of the crime is not good, and that the victim's mental impulse seems to be big, but no change in circumstances exists in sentencing after the decision of the court below.