The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The defendant is a sexual assault treatment program.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is misunderstanding the facts of the Defendant and misunderstanding of the legal principles: The Defendant’s injury caused the shortage of money to the injured party E, but the Defendant did not exempt the injured party E from paying a singing room or drinking value.

In addition, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the defendant cannot be found habitually of the attack, there is an error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

In spite of the fact that the Defendant’s indecent act was forced, the Defendant did not constitute an indecent act by placing his hand on the shoulder of the victim H, and did not constitute an indecent act.

The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the course) against the illegal accused in sentencing is too unreasonable.

On October 5, 2015, the prosecution of intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, which was based on the misapprehension of the public prosecutor’s facts and the misapprehension of the legal principles, was submitted by a written agreement (non-application for punishment) that expressed the victim’s intention not to punish the victim, and the judgment dismissing the prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, however, the lower court expressed the victim’s intention not to punish on August 24, 2015, which was prior to the prosecution.

Since a decision to dismiss a public prosecution was rendered in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act by misunderstanding facts, there is an error of misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the course) against an illegal accused in sentencing is too unhutiled and unfair.

Intimidation is a means of the crime of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to whether the defendant's habitual misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is recognized, and intimidation refers to the notification of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and malicious notification is not necessarily required to be made by the method of specification, and is not likely to cause harm and injury to the other party by language or scam.