The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

On March 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was that the Defendant opened a visit from the Defendant’s house located in the Sim-si, Man-si, Man-si, New Walls (the Defendant’s wife, 11 years of age) as the key to the visit of the locked victim (the Defendant’s wife, and the 11 years of age), and divided the victim’s sound above panty by inserting his hand into the victim’s surface.

As a result, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim by using the state of the victim who is unable to resist.

Although the defendant asserts that he/she is guilty of the summary of the grounds for appeal by using and rhizing the head of the victim, he/she did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case.

The punishment of the lower court (the three years of imprisonment, the suspension of execution four years, the lectures to treat sexual assault, 80 hours of social service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant and his defense counsel stated that all facts charged are recognized and contradictory to the judgment of the court below, and the reason for appeal does not state the misunderstanding of facts as well as the reason for appeal. The defendant or his defense counsel did not assert the misunderstanding of facts within the period for submission of a legitimate reason for appeal. The defendant and his defense counsel added "by mistake of facts on the date of the first trial of the court of the first instance for which the period for appeal has not elapsed."

Although the statement was made “,” any written statement on the assertion of mistake of facts was not submitted by the date of the closure of the trial proceedings thereafter.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, even if the court urged the court to ex officio inquiry or asserts a favorable reason for sentencing, this part of the facts charged of this case can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, this case.