The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant did not have the intent to force the Defendant to commit an indecent act on the ground that there was no intention to stimulate or satisfy the sexual desire of the victim only with the intent of resisting the victim and coercing the victim to commit an indecent act.

The judgment below

Of them, there is an error of misapprehension of legal principles in finding guilty of forced indecent act.

B. The fact that the sentencing is unfair is against the depth of the defendant; the crime of this case was committed due to mental and physical weakness or mental illness; the fact that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim in the original trial; the defendant was due to mental and physical weakness and mental illness; the criminal records were all due to mental and physical weakness and mental illness; the suspension of execution is invalidated if the sentence of the lower court is finalized; and the defendant was scheduled on February 12, 2017 due to the instant case.

It was already punished in society due to the impossibility of marriage, etc.

In light of the fact that the sentence imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant had already asserted the same as the reasons stated in the appeal at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the judgment.

Examining the circumstances in the lower court’s reasoning based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, closely comparing the records of the instant case, there was an intention to commit an indecent act against the Defendant.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is without merit.

B. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, where there exists a unique area of the first instance trial as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 23 July 23, 2015).