The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and his defense counsel (misunderstanding of the facts) is only the victim E, who was divorced before ten years ago, and the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim at a restaurant which is a large number of customers and open place.

First of all, the victim was in a restaurant, the defendant was in a restaurant after the defendant was sleeped to write a cafeteria, and the victim was not waiting for the defendant outside the restaurant.

Therefore, the victim did not assault the victim outside the restaurant or did not damage the mobile phone owned by the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by convicting all of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case is justifiable, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

① 피해자는 수사기관에서부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 “10 년 전에 이혼한 피고인과 식당에서 만났는데, 피고인이 술을 마시면서 ‘ 니가 나를 이렇게 망쳐 놨다 ’라고 하면서 욕설을 하고 옆자리에 앉으라고 하여 강제로 키스를 하고 점퍼 안으로 손을 집어넣어 가슴을 만지고 레깅스 바지 안으로 손을 넣어 음부를 만졌다.

The phone is called to be used to his wife, and the defendant's hand was sleeped, and was waiting to move out of the restaurant, but the defendant was sleeped when he was boomed when he was boomed by the defendant, leading his fingers and strongly refused to do so.

The telephone was made to his wife, and where the defendant calls, and the defendant calls; and

On the other hand, the cell phone which gets off the cell phone is the mobile phone.