The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of July 2015, the date and time of the instant facts charged by misunderstanding legal principles and misunderstanding of facts (Article 1) is as from July 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015

8. Between 20.20 (paragraph (2) and August 22, 2015)

9. Until 14. (Nos. 3 through 5) specify the facts charged as being excessively difficult to exercise the defendant's right of defense.

It is difficult to see it.

On the other hand, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, and there is no credibility of the victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged, and the Defendant did not have any place at the time of the crime.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged as stated in the judgment, which erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles and the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The purpose of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires the specific elements of the facts charged, is to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of the defendant's defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient to include the specific elements in a way that can easily distinguish the specific facts that meet the requirements for the constitution of the crime from other facts, and the time of the crime as stated in the above provision of the Criminal Procedure Act should be stated to the extent that the time of the crime does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription. Thus, even if the date of the crime is not specified in the indictment, the statement is not contrary to the above mentioned extent, and in addition, in light of the nature of the crime, general indication about the time is inevitable, and if it is deemed that there is no hindrance to the defendant's right of defense, the contents of the indictment are not specified

Now we cannot see (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1211 delivered on August 22, 1997, etc.). We cannot see it as legitimate in the court below.