The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the fact, did not commit an indecent act against the victim, except that the victim gets off his hair attached to the victim’s chest and her fingers into the chest, her fingers only once the victim gets off, and her tacks twice.

Since the Defendant moved to another place at around nine hours on the day of the instant case and met I, the Defendant could not commit an indecent act against the victim between two and thirty minutes as described in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 80 hours, and the lecture attendance order for sexual assault treatment 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged can be acknowledged.

(1) The statements made by the victim on the facts of damage are specific and consistent to enhance credibility (the victim was the same at the time that the defendant tried to look outside of the victim by leaving the victim's bank on the right bridge).

(2) The facts that there were about about 5 to 10 minutes with the victim on the day of the instant case are recognized, and it is sufficiently possible for the Defendant to commit an indecent act on the facts charged within 10 minutes.

If the victim stated that the indecent act time is about 20 to 30 minutes, there is a possibility that the victim might have different time from the actual time, and that the victim was only 1 on the day of the instant case.

Even if there is no inconsistency with the facts charged in the instant case.

(3) The injured party is between the defendant and his mother for a long time, and even though considering the fact that the defendant had taken together with his father on the day of the instant case, he was found to have committed an indecent act and did not immediately injure or resist the defendant, and only when the degree of such indecent act was serious, such as that the defendant's talking with his father, etc., the defendant's hand.