The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On June 2015, the facts charged regarding the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (indecent act, such as deceptive scheme) by a police officer in the middle of the facts charged were not specified.

2) The facts charged pertaining to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (an act by force, etc. on duty) did not specify the date and time of the crime.

B. On June 2015, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the Victim F in the middle of June 2015, by committing a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (indecent act, such as a deceptive scheme) against a police officer.

The only evidence of this part of the facts charged is the victim F's statement. The victim F's statement is contradictory in front and rear, contrary to the common sense, and the victim F was also at the time.

Since the statement of the victim F is inconsistent with the statement of the M claimed, the victim F's statement is not reliable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) On September 12, 2015, around September 12, 2015, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (e.g., deceptive act) against the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim F on September 12, 2015, and did not have sexual intercourse with the victim F around 10:00 on the same day.

The statement of the victim F on the facts charged of the act of similarity of force does not read the above victim's appraisal, even if the statement is specific, there is no other evidence corresponding thereto, and the victim F was locked from the defendant's side without escape even though he could go at the party's room after being subjected to the act of similarity from the defendant.

In light of the fact that the statement is made, the victim F's statement is not reliable.

In addition, the fact that there is no on-site absence of the accused (alba), and the victim F went to the third floor toilet, and the defendant is the fourth floor.