The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the grounds for appeal, i.e., (i) the victim’s statement is reliable in the statement because it does not appear to be consistent with the investigative agency from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and there is no other specific and different circumstances as to the Defendant’s act, content of damage, embling and response, and the situation before and after the crime; (ii) the Defendant also recognized the victim’s kis, and the victim’s kis, and the victim’s kis, which correspond to the part of the victim’s above statement.

In light of the facts stated in the judgment below, the defendant's indecent act is deemed to have committed an indecent act by force against the victim in light of the following: (a) although there is a part contrary to the victim's statement; (b) even according to the defendant's assertion, G considered the head immediately after G returned from the toilet; and (c) since the defendant committed a series of indecent act until the victim's death or injury was caused by a series of indecent act until the victim's death or injury was caused; and (d) the victim who was acute to the defendant in a state of he was fluoring the defendant in a state of he was fluored by G when all of the said indecent act was unsatisfed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.