The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the lower court’s determination, the Defendant argued to the same effect as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court did not appear to have any special circumstance to suspect the credibility of the victim’s statement as the victim’s statement is specific and consistent, and even in light of the F dialogue between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant merely explain the victim’s explanation about SM display to the victim.

Since it is recognized that the victim had been aware of the fact, the victim agreed to engage in SM display or agreed to hear explanations prior to the delivery with the Defendant.

On the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the Defendant as guilty of the facts charged.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to expect the injured party to make a accurate and consistent statement even whether the injured party had contacted the location of the hand or sexual intercourse at the time of the indecent act, in light of the following: (a) the indecent act in this case took place in a short time; (b) the injured party removed his body from the Defendant immediately; and (c) the injured party appears to have ever been frighted or to have frighted by the apparatus used for the SM display and the SM display screen image shown by the Defendant immediately before the crime in this case; and (d) there is a possibility that the detailed contents of the indecent act committed in this circumstance could not be forgotten.

In addition, the victim has consistently made detailed and consistent statements about how to contact with the defendant, how to go in the telecom with the defendant, and how to go in the telecom with the defendant, and how to have been the defendant in that area.

Therefore, there is credibility in the victim's statement.

(c).