All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

As to the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts, the fact that the defendant attempted to raise the victim to the victim is not sufficient, but the chest of the victim is not sufficient.

As to the crime No. 3 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not have any contact with the victim.

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

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence submitted by a prosecutor, misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part on the crime of bodily injury by compulsion), the facts of indecent act such as the crime in the judgment of the court below are sufficiently recognized that the victim suffered injury “a person with mental disorder, etc. requiring mental treatment for at least three months” due to such indecent act as crime

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged the injury by indecent act as not guilty on the ground is erroneous and erroneous.

The sentence imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

In the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as this part of the grounds for appeal, and rejected the above assertion by reasoning of the judgment of the lower court on the part of “2.2. Determination.” Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence legitimately adopted and examined, the lower court’s determination is reasonable and has no errors of law by misunderstanding of facts. The Defendant’s argument is without merit. The lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine shows various circumstances after the Defendant committed indecent act, namely, that the injury of “mal disorder” caused to the victim, i.e., the Defendant’s attitude to make a vindication or to gather the victim, rather than showing the attitude against the Defendant after the instant indecent act. However, the Defendant was aware of the instant company,