강제추행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, mispercing the beer's kitchen room as a toilet with the knowledge that it was not a toilet and was able to do so at a rapid speed to make it open through the door door, and the Defendant was faced with the victim at a rapid speed, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① the victim consistently states that he was indecent act from the defendant from the police to the court of the court below; ② The victim’s investigative agency and court of the court of the court below stated the victim’s oral statement that “In the course of coming to the right after the victim’s entry and exit of the defendant to leave the front door with E and the body from the front door to the front door of the defendant, I am am shythm, and am shym on the right side to the victim with the upper door, and amhyd and used the chest, and amhyd and used the chest; ③ The victim’s statement that he was sexually detailed from the court of the court of the court below to the effect that “The victim’s body was snick, and it was hard to view the victim’s body as the victim’s body,” and the victim’s statement that the witness “at the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the first instance was replaced.”