In Stephan v. State, 810 P.2d 564 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991), elucidated with clarity the sexual act of "cunnilingus" as juxtaposed to "sexual penetration." That case instructed: The evidence at trial in support of Count VII of the indictment proved that the defendant made oral contact with the victim's vaginal area, but that neither the defendant's mouth nor tongue intruded into the genital opening. The trial court found that such contact, even without actual penetration of the genitals, was sufficient to prove "sexual penetration" through the act of "cunnilingus." The defendant now argues that in the absence of actual penetration of the opening, "sexual penetration" is not proven under the statute. . . . . . . . The trial court instruction stated that "cunnilingus" and "fellatio" do not require penetration of or by any organ, but that mere contact with the mouth and the genitals was sufficient . This court applied the dictionary definition and determined that the meaning of "cunnilingus" . . . does not require penetration by the mouth or tongue, but that contact between the mouth or tongue and the genitals was sufficient. (Id. at 568.)