The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant was leashing a heavy back-to-date, and the Defendant’s female rash M was frighting the Defendant, and thus, did not commit an indecent act against the victim.

Even if there was contact

Even if there was no intention to commit an indecent act against the defendant, because the person has been contacted with many places.

In addition, the part that one injured person called "Isn't know" from the defendant's daily behavior is not admissible as evidence or is admissible as evidence, even if it is admissible as evidence.

Even if there is no proof as to the witness of the Defendant’s behavior at the night, the lower court did not grant any particular value of evidence, unless it is proven that the Defendant’s behavior at the end of the trial, and the lower court erred by taking the victim’s above expert statement as the basis for determining the conviction.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the guilty guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and hearing.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million, KRW 40 hours’ order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts) The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, in light of the circumstances as stated in the statement, has credibility in the victim’s statement.

Based on the judgment of the court, the charges were convicted.

2) Considering the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below in light of the circumstances revealed by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

A) The Defendant’s monaked the back and received the Defendant’s lopped Ma’s lopped.

Even in such a situation, the defendant did not physically make it impossible for the defendant to talk with his her son.

B) At the time of retirement.