However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On September 25, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00, around 15:00, at the B site of the YY-gun, and around 44 years old, the victim C (n'e, 44 years old) who gets out of his own Chinese food on the street was unable to prepare for the instant drinking-water for drinking water, and (b) both of the victims, who gets out of their own chests, kiddd the victim’s right chest with the left hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an indecent act on the part of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Part of the witness C’s legal statement;

1. Some statements of the prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The statement in part of the police statement Nos. 1 and 2 made to C;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. 112 reported case handling table;

1. Attachment of a field satellite photograph;

1. One CD of video recording (No. 10 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. Ten copies of the on-site photographs;

1. Determination of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion of investigation report (Evidence No. 6 No. 5 of the evidence list)

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant and his defense counsel held that the Defendant’s statement was not reliable and not guilty in consideration of the difference between the victim and witness’s statement on the place where the Defendant and witness’s indecent act were committed, and the victim’s statement was not reliable, when considering the difference between the victim and witness’s statement on the method of indecent act and the place where the Defendant and witness’s indecent act were committed.

2. First of all, the Defendant stated that the police officer dispatched after receiving the report on the day of the instant case stated that the instant case fell under the victim’s body part by viewing that it would cause inconvenience to the victim’s right-hand body while receiving the bridge and drinking water from the victim. The police investigation stated that “one goes beyond a balance and thereby, going beyond the victim’s right-hands (lights)” and that “the police investigation goes beyond the victim’s right-hands (lights).” In the prosecutor’s investigation, one’s hand goes beyond the victim’s back, and one’s hand is the victim’s humb.