The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The third page of the judgment of the court below and the second page 20 and the second page 21, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not fuck the victim's breast side by bucking the victim's hand, and there was no fact that the Defendant's hand was buckbucks by putting the Defendant's hand into the victim's part, and continued to spread the victim's chest and bucks by hand, and there was no fact that the victim's chest and buckbucks were sucked on the bridge, and the victim did not say that "I want to go on the bridge."

The Defendant denied all the facts charged at the lower court, but only some of the charges were found in the trial of the party, and recognized the fact that the Defendant sucks down the victim’s chest, the fact that the buckbuck paper was sucked, and the victim’s her her son’s son’s her son and her son’s son’s son.

The fact that the defendant's wife was doing the above behavior while attending school immediately next to the defendant's wife was against his common sense, and that the defendant's act was committed with the defendant's clothes above the victim's chest to the defendant's chest. First, the victim took the behavior, such as "An extension operation between South and North Korea," and the student in our school. Whether the chest is too small, is not a bridge, or not a bridge," and the defendant took the behavior, such as active punishment for the bridge or the end of the bridge.

The victim asserted that the defendant was a negative child in the complaint, but did not make a statement at the investigative agency. The mother of the victim only resisted the fact that the first defendant was the chest of the victim, but did not mention the fact that the victim did not mention the fact that the victim was bucks. The victim's statements are not consistent and exaggerationd.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the victim guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the victim’s statement was reliable is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a program, and 5 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.