The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding: The defendant does not have suffered injury by committing an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

However, it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize it as a fact by dependent only on the statements of the victim who lacks credibility.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such determination must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to find a guilty guilty in a criminal trial does not require a reasonable doubt to the extent that all possible doubts are excluded, and rejection of evidence recognized as having probative value is not permitted beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The expression “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt about the probability of facts inconsistent with the facts that are not proven in accordance with logical and empirical rules, not including all questions and correspondences, but should be based on the sexual reasoning theory that is grasping the circumstances favorable to the defendant in relation to the fact finding. Thus, it cannot be said that a doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4165, Apr. 16, 2014).