The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of indecent act by force among the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of logical and empirical rules and

In addition, this case is obvious that it does not constitute a case eligible for a participatory trial under Article 5 (1) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials. Thus, the first instance court and the lower court did not confirm the defendant's desire for a participatory trial.

There is no violation of law that did not judge or judge it.

In addition, a written judgment is signed and sealed by the judge (Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Act), but it is not necessary to affix the signature and seal of the judge to the copy of the judgment delivered to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3060 Decided June 28, 2007). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was an error of omission of a judge’s signature and seal on a different premise.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.