The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Not obscenity as stated in the facts charged of mistake of facts

On May 7, 2016, the situation at the time of the crime is not memory.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant seems to have committed obscene acts as stated in the facts charged.

Victim D and E's words can be believed in a very concrete and consistent manner.

At the time of the crime between April 25, 2016 and May 7, 2016, there is almost the number of the defendants' seals identified in the closed circuit (CCTV) photographs of subway stations at the time of the crime.

Defendant also recognized his own form.

On May 7, 2016, the victim E reported 112 immediately after the damage to the police and sent to the police, and the Defendant was designated as a criminal in view of the closed-circuit (CCTV) video of the G Station.

In light of the identity of the content and method of crime, similarity of appearance, timing and method of identifying the offender, etc., victim E does not seem to have any possibility that the victim E has mistakenly identified the offender.

B. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not deemed to be unfair in light of the circumstances revealed in the grounds of sentencing and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the record.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.