1. Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment regarding the victim E’s indecent act is reversed.

2. Defendant 5,00,000 won.

1. The court below's scope of a party member's trial made a judgment of conviction against the crime of assault and indecent act by force among several facts charged in concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant did not appeal against the judgment below. Since only the prosecutor appealed against the acquittal part of the judgment below and the conviction part of the judgment below became final and conclusive separately from the acquittal part, the scope of a party member's trial is limited to

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victim D and E, and despite sufficient evidence to support this, the lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of the above facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on December 26, 2012, 200: (b) on the part of the victim D (at the age of 54), the Defendant, in the front of the victim D (at the age of 54), who has danced in the stage, she satising two times by drinking both her breasts of the victim E (at the age of 48), a single son’s own hand, and she satising the female’s her own hand, and she she she she she she shesssssssssssssss and shes his her finger, and she she shes his her finger, and she she shes his her finger, with his her finger hand, and she she shes his her finger, with his her finger hand.

Accordingly, the defendant committed an indecent act by force against the victims.

4. The lower court’s determination is doubtful that there is no consistency in the victim E’s statement, and there is doubt about the credibility of the statement; the victim D statements as if he/she directly appeared to have been examined by an investigative agency other than the facts he/she appeared to have been examined; the lack of consistency in the statement is insufficient; the defendant and C statements in the victim D and C and the victim E are contradictory to each other in relation to the instrument at which the defendant and C were challenged, thereby making them false statements or exaggerationd at the time.