The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant commits an indecent act against the victim;

The statements of the victim are not only changed once but also inconsistent with the values and are also inconsistent with the video pictures taken by the victim and thus they are not reliable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts that he committed an indecent act against the victim. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

① In light of the consistent contents of the victim’s statement, in particular, the victim took photographs of the Defendant for the purpose of securing evidence as a police officer who investigates subway crimes, and the circumstances leading to arresting the victim as a flagrant offender after having suspended his/her taking pictures no longer than anything else, credibility is recognized in the victim’s statement that he/she committed an indecent act, such as the facts constituting an offense indicated in the lower judgment.

② The Defendant alleged that it is impossible for the Defendant’s grandchildren, who suffered from a mobile phone, to rhythize the victim’s gymhythm towards the other side of the victim’s sathy or sathrhy the sathm., but can sufficiently spread the victim’s knives and knives into one’s fingers. Therefore, it is insufficient to reverse the credibility of the victim

3. Article 59-3 of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was enforced on June 12, 2019, exempted from the employment restriction order, applies to persons who have committed sex offenses before the said Act enters into force (Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (amended by December 11, 2018). The instant crime constitutes a sex offense to which the said provision applies, and thus, this court should decide on whether to issue or exempt an employment restriction order to persons with disabilities to the Defendant.

The age, criminal record, family environment, social relationship, details and motive of the crime, method of the crime, and the result of the employment restriction order, the degree of disadvantage of the defendant resulting from the employment restriction order.