The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant was exposed to the Defendant’s sexual organ, although there was a fact that the Defendant was exposed to the Defendant’s sexual organ, the cosmetic price indication was not well visible and was not sexually exposed, and the Defendant did not engage in any obscene act. 2) Article 1-B of the facts charged, and Article 1-3(c) of the facts charged. The Defendant did not have disclosed the Defendant’s sexual organ like this part of the facts charged.

3) Although the Defendant entered the victim’s house, there was no fact that knife the knife or the victim’s chest was taken alone, and indecent act by force was committed by force. B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, the court below's obscenity as stated in Article 1-A of the facts charged: (a) it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant opened to many unspecified persons and opened to the beauty art room so that he could have access to the public; and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in this part of the judgment by the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part, and therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.) The victim asked at the investigative agency that "I 12,00 won" and "I am open to the beauty room operated by the victim on the day of the crime." (A) The victim asked "I am 12,00 won" and "I am open from the day of the crime," and "I am back to this point and let the victim clean it back to the defendant and returned it back to the defendant.