The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant was guilty of indecent act by indecent act on the ground that there was no intention to contact the victim's sexual organ and there was no assault or intimidation on the victim's sexual organ, despite the fact that there was no intention to contact the victim's sexual organ, the crime of indecent act by indecent act cannot be established, regardless of whether the crime of indecent act by indecent act by indecent act is established, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

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

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts seems to be acceptable based on evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, ① the victim, at the first police investigation stage, did not think that it would have been why the Defendant was satched and satisfed (at the end of the second floor within the soup 3th to the entrance of the head). However, at the first police investigation stage, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was satisfing the third floor so that the Defendant was satisfing and satisfing the third floor so that he was satched. However, at the first after satching, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was satfing the body of the Defendant and satching the bridge out of the earth and opened the satch to the end of the satch satch, and the satisfing statement to the effect that the satisfing statement to the effect that the satisf was consistently made.