The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not have committed indecent act by force as shown in the facts charged, and even though the person taken CCTV was not the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, around July 30, 2012, around 17:45, the victim was waiting for pedestrian signal at the crosswalk in the front of the D Hospital in Macheon-si. Around July 30, 2012, the lower court ceased to stop; the suspect was her her amb, and the victim was her amb, and the victim was her amb off the suspect, and the victim was her amb off the suspect. After that the suspect was a stop signal at the crosswalk, the suspect was cut away without permission even though the signal at the crosswalk was turned down. The victim, which was remaining at the crosswalk, concealed the suspect. The victim was confirmed that the suspect was entering the crosswalk, which was reported to the police around 17:50 on the same day, and the victim entered the above G office after receiving a report, and confirmed the fact of arresting the suspect by entering the police officer around 180:0 each day.

In addition to these facts, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen above, namely, ① the suspect did not stop after the victim’s her her m, but rather stopped in the middle of 2-3 malleway and 10 seconds by the vehicle operated in accordance with the progress signal at the time, and the victim’s face or appearance is sufficiently confirmed at the time of the occurrence of the victim’s her malm (around 2000, the victim was placed on the suspect continuously crossing the suspect without permission). ② The “G office” is on the second floor of the first building at the crosswalk, and is on the crosswalk.