All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant was guilty of the facts, did not have a jurisdiction over the victim D’s buckbucks, and did not have tried to use the victim E in order to use the victim E.

Defendant

D, E is likely to have made an exaggerated statement in this situation.

However, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found all the facts charged guilty.

B. The misunderstanding of the legal doctrine of the Defendant does not constitute an indecent act in which the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine of the Defendant either breaking a son’s shoulder or jum or trancing a son.

The defendant has been in physical contact with the victims from the time they came to write their head.

The defendant did not have the awareness that contact with the victim's body was a crime, and there was no intention to compel the victims to commit an indecent act.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute an indecent act.

Although the court below acknowledged the defendant's act as an indecent act, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on indecent act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The defendant asserts that the amount of the punishment of the court below is unfair, and that the amount of the punishment of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair. The defendant asserts that the amount of the punishment of the court below is unfair, because it is too unreasonable for the defendant to pay the punishment of the defendant and the prosecutor, and that the amount of the punishment of the court below is unfair. The prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment of the court below is unfair because it is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and the legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, found the Defendant’s charge that the Defendant only suckbucks inside the victim D’s bucks, and caused the shoulder to the victim E, and that such an act constitutes “scambing” and the Defendant had intention to commit the act.

The judgment was made.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, there are various circumstances acknowledged in the last part of the 5th to 6th of the judgment of the court below.