A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, told that he was frightened by her children in the playground, and she was frighting by her children, and did not commit an indecent act against the victims, and did not intend to commit an indecent act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant alleged that the lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part.

Under the title of “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”, the lower court: (a) comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the Defendant’s evidence, deemed that, as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the Defendant, the victim D was spared with humping force; and (b) the Defendant’s speech

In addition, as the body of D was taken in his hands as the body of the victim E, the head was used in his hands and rhyth, and the body of both the side lives and both the end lives of E were taken into the body of the victim, and then the victim was taken into the body of the victim E. This act is not merely merely an expression of the victims, but it is against the victim's will that the exercise of the force of force, doing against the victim's intention, causing sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public, causing sexual humiliation or aversion, and is contrary to the good sexual moral sense. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the act committed by the defendants constitutes a forced indecent act, as it adversely affects the sexual consciousness or concept of the victims, who were female children, who were physically and physically growing. In light of the fact that the defendants met each body of the victims, its method, and the circumstances at the time, etc., it is recognized that the above act constitutes an objectively indecent act.