The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) by the Defendant does not have any fact that the part of the victim’s her butt will be her son as stated in the judgment below.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around September 11, 2014, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim in means of public transportation, such as: (b) around the time when the subway 9-line train of subway 9, which was operated as an active air-free area of new logic around 08:41, arrives in E located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul; (c) the part of the victim F (V, 40 years old), which was located in front of the train

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the duly admitted evidence.

3. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized in accordance with the records of the judgment of the political party, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime.

Nevertheless, as the court below found the defendant guilty, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant's argument that pointed out this point is justified. A.

Victim F did not directly see the part of the defendant's her knift with his knift as his knift.

The objective experience of F is limited to the embarrast, embarrast, etc. (the embarrath, emnath, emnath in hand), and immediately after the emnath’s emnath, etc. (the Defendant’s emnath, emnath, etc.).

Nevertheless, F makes a statement to the effect that “The Defendant was able to write down after the victim at the time of indecent act, and the Defendant was her her son because her son was her son.”