A. In the facts charged, the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as he did not commit indecent act by force by force by force on the part of the victim G, bucks with the victim G losses or with the hand floor, or by setting the Defendant’s hand on the victim’s bucks, or by putting the victim’s hand on the victim’s bucks, or by putting the victim’s bucks inside the bucks,

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of enforcement oil, and two years of attendance order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant argued the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument and found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged in this case by providing a detailed statement of the defendant's argument and judgment from Nos. 1 to 78 of the judgment of the court below. In full view of the circumstances cited by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts alleged

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, there are favorable circumstances such as the defendant's time to commit the crime against the victim F and the fact that there is no criminal history against the defendant, the defendant agreed with the victims, etc. However, each of the crimes of this case in question is very inappropriate to constitute an indecent act against the victims who should be seen as an educator, and the victim's mental shock caused by the defendant's criminal act seems to have occurred due to the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion. In full view of the above, the court below's punishment is too heavy.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.