The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The Defendant, as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim C and G.

The evidence supporting each of the facts charged in the instant case includes H, F, Victim C, and the victim G’s statement in the lower court court court and the investigative agency. Among the H’s statement, the part concerning the Defendant’s criminal facts from the victim G was present and testified in the lower court as evidence and the victim G appeared and testified in the lower court. As such, the part concerning the Defendant’s criminal facts from the victim G does not constitute an exception requirement under Articles 314 and 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus,

In addition, considering that the statements made by the victim C are not consistent, they are inconsistent with F's statements, are inconsistent with F's statements, are inconsistent with empirical rules, and F's statements are inconsistent with F's statements, are not consistent, and most of the facts of the instant crime are nothing more than having been heard from victims, and the victim G was in bad conduct, it is difficult to believe all the statements made by F, victim C, and victim G.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case based on each of the statements made by H, F, Victim C, and Victim G with no admissibility of evidence or credibility is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. 1) The Defendant asserted that there was no indecent act by force against the victim C even in the lower court, on the grounds that there was no indecent act by force against the victim C. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the lower court recognized the credibility of the victim C’s statement consistent with this part of the facts charged, and rejected the Defendant’s above assertion.

The victim C is like a big string in the investigative agency about the situation at the time of damage.