The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground of the defendant's statement that the defendant was not consistent or inaccurate in spite of the victim's her her tumm in the process of avoiding a narrow way of misunderstanding the facts, while she was faced with the victim's shoulder while walking. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (4 million won in punishment, and 24 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant argues that the body is faced in the process of passing through a narrow path. However, the court below held that the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the victim E's trial testimony, namely, the victim E's statement explaining the damaged facts, are consistent and specific in the main part from investigative agencies to the trial court of the party, and that the witness F, who was walking in the opposite part, would be prompt for the defendant to walk and be followed by the victim.

In light of the fact that CCTV video recording is consistent with the statements of the witness, the defendant can be found to have access to the victim's rear side and the fact that the victim's jum is her her butt.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment for an unfair assertion of sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, such as the circumstance favorable to the Defendant, or the fact that it appears that sexual humiliation or mental impulses that she was sworn, and that the Defendant did not agree with the victim, etc.

In light of these favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the defendant, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.