The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that quasi-indecent acts by compulsion 1), the victim showed the attitude of expressing the sense of mind against the defendant, the defendant also recognized that the victim consented and consented to it, and there was no intention to unilaterally commit an indecent act by taking advantage of the victim's state of refusal to resist. 2) The fact that the indecent act by compulsion was committed by the defendant's dwelling and by inserting his hand into the victim's part in the victim's bar, there is no intention to s

The judgment of the court below which found guilty on the basis of the statements of the victim without consistency is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years of suspended sentence on August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel in detail, on the grounds that the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is identical to the grounds for appeal of this case, and the court below stated in the judgment of the court below that "the judgment on the defendant and defense counsel's assertion".

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant.

(CCTV image made it clear that the defendant committed indecent acts several times against the victim who has been unable to resist due to the taking of his or her ability to resist, the victim's statement is consistent with the victim's statement in indecent acts by compulsion committed by the defendant at his or her residence, the victim has misunderstanding the situation at the time, or there is no motive to harm the defendant). The above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.