The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following circumstances after mistake of facts, the court below which found the probative value of the victim's statement lack credibility and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake of facts.

1) The victim, who was divingd in the state of being diversed, had a physical contact with E in which he was frightened or frightened on the frame for the prevention of the abortion for children, and then was frightened by a person’s form after being frightened into a mong. 2) At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, he was frightened by a person’s name other than the crismast in a ward. In such a case, the victim statements about the unique increase of the decent act offender, even though it is too difficult to distinguish the increase of people from others.

This is highly likely to distort memory due to the influence of the defendant's photograph while the defendant was found to be the perpetrator after the occurrence of the case.

3) The victim stated that the perpetrator saw that the perpetrator is leaving the room to the inside and leaving the room after the indecent act. However, in the location of the victim who was being occupied by the inner structure of the house, it is not always visible that the perpetrator moves to the inside and outside of the room. 4) The victim’s chest, which is going out of the mouth, cannot be easily seen because it is the frame to prevent the abortions installed in the bed for children’s use, is going back to the bed by the bed, and it is not easy for the perpetrator to look back to the chest of the victim.

5) The statements of the victim are not consistent as to whether the victim committed sound after the indecent act was committed. 6) As a result of the appraisal of clothes, etc. of the victim, the Defendant’s DNA was not detected.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (10 months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order, and 3 years of employment restriction) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The developments leading up to the case following the statement of the victim and E regarding the assertion of mistake of facts.