The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) did not commit an indecent act by allowing the victim to contact the left part of the victim's chest or to contact the victim's bucks on the part of the bucks.

2. In the process of the appellate court’s trial, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.

In a case where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, the judgment on fact-finding at the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges by taking into account the following circumstances: (i) the victim’s statement as to the fact-finding is consistent and specific from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court; (ii) the victim’s photograph taken by the victim at the time of the instant case and the message sent by the victim to his/her relative; (iii) the victim’s statement as to the time and place was partially dismissed; and (iv) the victim’s statement as to the fact-finding itself does not reach the degree that it does not reliable to make a statement on the fact-finding itself.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Therefore, it is true.