The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant merely left the clothes of the victim’s lower part of her slock, but did not have any her her tock.

Even such an act was committed.

However, it is not recognized as an indecent act in consideration of the fact that the time of contact with the grandchild was only 1 to 2 seconds, and that the process was the process of driving the woman who was exercising the promotional event at the open place.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment and forty hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court, in full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, found that the Defendant could recognize the Defendant’s indecent act by deceiving her her her buttt.

Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion was rejected.

In addition to the circumstances presented by the court below, a series of circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① immediately after the injured party committed an indecent act, the defendant should not have her her t

“............ 2.. the Defendant did not appear.

It means that people who had been at the scene point out the defendant's behavior, and considering the defendant's appearance where the defendant is her butt.

In full view of the facts that the Defendant reported the instant crime to the police on the date of the victim’s damage, (3) the victim’s statement is consistent and consistent with the witness’s statement, and (5) the Defendant also recognized part of the fact that he extended to the lower part of the victim’s her hand, etc., the Defendant can recognize the fact that the victim was her tum, and this constitutes an indecent act as an act that causes a sense of sexual shame to the victim and infringes on the victim’s sexual freedom, and thus, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.