The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, inasmuch as the Defendant was aware that the victim was seated with the intention of so-called so-called “salking,” and did not have the victim’s arms and shouldered to communicate with the victim, and did not constitute an indecent act itself, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, inasmuch as the act itself cannot be viewed as an indecent act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of one million won, 40 hours’ order) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court, in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant forced the victim to commit an indecent act as stated in the instant facts charged.

The decision was determined.

In light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's aforementioned determination seems to be justifiable, and there was no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The Defendant alleged to the effect that he saw the victim’s arms and shoulder to communicate with the victim, but did not have any intention to commit an indecent act. However, the Defendant’s daily act was in use of two adjacent tables, and the employee sought understanding from the Defendant’s daily act and divided the tables. As such, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s daily act and the victim’s daily act were separate, and the Defendant stated to the effect that the table was arranged by the employee at the time of the instant case, and that the number of pages for the Defendant’s daily act and the victim’s daily act was separate, and that the number of pages for the instant case was 46-18, 46-22, and the evidence record No. 70 was organized by the employee at the time of the instant case. However, if the Defendant’s daily act was in the so-called “so-called” situation, it appears that there was no reason to arrange the table and that the Defendant was well aware of it.