The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The defendant misunderstanding of facts did not commit an indecent act.

In dividing conversations in the victim's room, "the victim is subject to stress due to stress" was considered to be in mind at the victim's end. At the time, the victim's face faced with the defendant's face at the same time, and the victim's face faced with the defendant's face at the same time, and the victim's face could have contacted the victim's face, but the defendant did not put the victim's face at the time and did not have to face the victim.

The defendant has undergone a snow operation twice in the past, and the 57 dump is not easily seen as close to the victim, so in order to see the victim's sump, the face should be close.

The phrase “the Defendant is abnormal in view of width,” which means that the Defendant only opposed the victim, and the Defendant was faced with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was unaware of how to keep the victim on face of the victim.

There is no fact that the defendant had sexual intention and acted with the victim in the past.

피해자가 밤늦게 피고인이 처와 나란히 누워 있는 침대에 누워서 TV를 보기에 방으로 가라는 의미로 발로 툭 찬 것이 피해자의 허벅지에 닿았을지는 모르나 성적인 의도로 발을 부빈 사실은 없다.

At the time, the defendant was not in a situation that is likely to commit an indecent act against the victim because the defendant was a person who had covered and enjoyed the boom in the bed with his wife.

In relation to the credibility of the statement of the victim, the indecent act in the facts charged of this case is "the defendant tried to wear and sustain the victim's face by hand," and since the defendant did not receive the victim's face and did not engage in any other indecent act, the statement made by the victim that the defendant tried to sustain is due to the victim's sensitive appraisal.