A. Fact misunderstanding (as to the crime No. 2 in the judgment below), the Defendant merely committed an indecent act in a way that her son or her son or son was her part of the victim G, but her son or her son or son was her son or her son or son in his son or her son, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

G Statements made at the investigative agency and the original court shall not be independent, but shall not be sufficient to support this part of the facts charged, and shall not be evidence to reinforce the confession.

The act of a defendant does not constitute an indecent act in law.

B. The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's indecent act can be sufficiently recognized by misunderstanding the facts as stated in the judgment below (as to paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment below), according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below.

In particular, the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement (Evidence No. 115 pages of evidence) to the effect that the Defendant’s statement in the lower court (36 pages of the trial record) and “a person who had her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

However, it is difficult to reject credibility only by itself.

In addition, G police statements (which means 68 pages of evidence) to the effect that “I am embarrasses,” would suffice as evidence of reinforcement of the confession of the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s act was that the victim did not feel a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion, even though it was actually committed by the Defendant.

Even if it causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public objectively, it shall be good.