All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found Defendant (1) guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, and misunderstanding the victim’s statements and CCTV images, etc., which are not highly reliable despite the fact that the Defendant had forced physical contact with the victim, and evaluating the probative value of the victim’s statement by the court below as evidence of guilt. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of lecture for sexual assault treatment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal. The lower court, by explaining detailed circumstances, acknowledged the Defendant’s chest, fluor, etc. of the victim, and committed an indecent act by exercising force against the victim’s will in light of the victim’s intent, behavior, relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the situation up to

The decision was determined.

Examining the evidence of this case closely, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine cannot be accepted.

B. According to the arguments and records of the instant case’s determination of each of the unfair arguments on sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering the various grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

(c)

In accordance with Article 56 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which was amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018 and enforced from July 17, 2018, the court shall issue an employment restriction order at the same time with the judgment of a sex offense case against a child, juvenile, or adult, but the defendant's age, occupation, and sex offense have the record of punishment.