The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim as indicated in the judgment below (it appears that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as indicated in the judgment below (it appears that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim (it appears that, at the time of the Defendant’s taking out the wall, the earphone’s personal name was affected by the horizontal rail near the subway electric entrance, and collected it by extending the hand, and the victim was frighted to the victim by reporting the Defendant’s hand and reporting the victim’s chest). Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact.

B. Even if the sentencing was found to be guilty, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant was first and faithfully living.

2. Determination

A. The victim E, from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, stated that the defendant, from the court of the court of the court below, she saw the victim to put his hand into the upper part of the shoulder in the shoulder to the upper part of the defendant.

As specific and consistent statements are made, there is credibility in the victim's statements.

The lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.

there are special circumstances to see that there is credibility in the above statement;

The judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to be a case where maintaining the judgment of the court below is considerably unfair, and the victim stated that the victim was flick by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence that the victim was flick by inserting a hand into the inner part, and the physical contact between the defendant and the method or content of the physical contact is considerably different from the defendant's claim, and the defendant was involved in an indecent act as seen above.

It seems that there is no possibility of misunderstanding, and the victim is a special motive or economic benefit that might mislead the defendant.