The argument is asserted.

However, examining the various circumstances cited by the court below with the record and closely, even if the prosecutor considered all the contents of the appeal, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone proves that this part of the facts charged is beyond reasonable doubt.

We affirm the judgment of the court below that it is difficult to view.

There is no error of misunderstanding of facts as argued by the prosecutor.

The Prosecutor’s assertion does not accept the Defendant’s assertion of inspection (in addition, the Defendant was in a state of drinking to the extent that G, H, and F, as well as drinking alcohol, was reduced by G on the day of the instant case at the court of original instance, and the Defendant was in a state of drinking at F’s house

The court records, 85 pages of the trial records, 95 pages of the trial records, 104 pages of the trial records, 104 pages of the trial records, following the instant case, Defendant 1 stated that the police officer questioning the circumstances of the instant case because he was not able to take alcohol despite the fact that he was assaulted by D immediately after the instant case, accompanied by D after the 98th day of the investigation records, and went to the police box, was not clear to the police officer who was asked for the instant case because he did not escape," and that he was accompanied by the police box 20,21th day of the investigation records, G accompanied by the police box, like 20, 21th day of the investigation records, stated that the head was almost over the ground floor of the police box, and that he did so big interest because one of the persons was unsatisfed, etc. at the time of the instant case, in light of the 88th side of the trial records, etc.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, even if the defendant committed the act of gathering the victim's chest, etc.

Even if the defendant had the intent to commit an indecent act,

[Judgment of the court below] 2.0