A. In other words, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts, was extending out to the victim to the end, and the Defendant’s hand was merely contacted with the victim’s other parts, etc., and there was no intentional her tam.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below by misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the statements in E investigative agency that can recognize credibility, and CCTV images, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The defendant's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. There are circumstances in which the sentencing is unfair to the criminal defendant without the same criminal records.

However, the nature of the crime of this case and the circumstances of the crime of this case are not less severe, but they were not used as the victim.

In addition, considering the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health status, previous convictions, and circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

There is no reason to believe that the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.