A. In light of the facts stated in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the lower judgment, the Defendant did not have the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her but her her her her her her her

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim made a statement that he was guilty of indecent act from the defendant as stated in the facts charged in this case, relatively consistent from the investigative agency to the court below. ② The victim was merely using the same subway without face-to face-face identification with the defendant. Although the victim reported the indecent act by telephone immediately after committing the crime as stated in paragraph (4) of the facts charged in the court below, he was aware of the defendant's will to have been committed. If the victim did not have committed an indecent act like the facts of the crime in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the court below, the victim could not accurately stated the defendant's will. ③ As to the crime as stated in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the court below's criminal facts, the victim did not memory the date and time of indecent act from the defendant, but what is the victim's statement about the frequency of the crime, which appears to have been dependent upon the victim's testimony during the period of the crime.