All judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant did not commit an indecent act by compulsion on the part of the first instance judgment concerning indecent act by compulsion.

A victim who makes a well-known speech was tending to make a false speech at a mental hospital.

The key of the defendant is 175 cm, while the key of the victim is less than 160 cm.

The victim stated that the defendant did not have any knowledge about entering or leaving the victim.

It is physically impossible for the defendant to enjoy dancing.

The father of the victim stated in the court below that "the victim was able to see what type (the defendant) in the hospital is well grounded."

However, the first dialogue between the defendant and the victim is only the date of the occurrence of the instant case.

After that, there is no fact that the defendant has re-explosed the victim.

If the victim was forced to commit indecent acts by compulsion, his father does not have the above words.

This clearly shows that this part of the crime does not exist.

In the court below's decision, the victim stated to the effect that "the defendant is recorded in an elevator after the incident."

The defendant was unable to escape from elevators at the time.

The victim's statement is false in light of the results of inquiry about C Hospital.

In front of the place of occurrence of the case, a hospital employee was on duty.

If an indecent act by compulsion was committed, the victim did not take such measures, even though he/she could have requested the formation of sound or reported on the side of the hospital.

It is difficult to believe that the result of the psychological examination for the victim who is not in a sound mental state is difficult.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had a female-friendly Gu at the time of the instant case and did not have any idea to fit the same-sex victim.

The defendant did not have any problem with other juveniles before and after the age of 16.