All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The Defendant alleged a mistake of facts against the Defendant’s assertion on the mistake of facts is merely the victim’s flick attitude to mislead the victim, so this physical contact cannot be seen as an indecent act by compulsion. Even if it constitutes indecent act by compulsion, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit indecent act against the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Judgment

The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the lower court.

As to this, the court below found the defendant's assertion on the ground that the defendant was aware of the fact that he had to exercise due care so as not to mislead female students or cause a sense of sexual shame due to improper physical contacts when he instructs female students to engage in physical activities for 37 years as elementary school teachers, and that the contact place is a part of sexually sensitive to the fact that "the part between fluor and breast", "the part between fluor and fluor, located between fluor", and "the part between fluor and fluor," and the victim was a student who fluoring fluorship with a simple hobby, and if it is inevitable to have a physical contact, the victim should have explained the reason and method of the contact in advance. It stated that the physical contact was conducted without such process, the fluorian guidance teacher also stated that the fluorian leader was a part of the physical contact, the circumstances leading the victim's report is natural and there was no motive to make a false statement.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below acknowledged various circumstances as the court below, and considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the defendant's intentional indecent act, such as the facts charged, is sufficiently recognized.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is erroneous for the defendant.