The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is an indecent act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public objectively, and shall be determined carefully in consideration of the intent of the victim, gender, age, relationship before the offender and the victim, circumstances leading to the act, etc., as a whole;

However, even though the Defendant’s fyd and fyd and fyd together with the victim when her work together with the victim for one month does not constitute an indecent act, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, thereby misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine on indecent act by force, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the lower court, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was only her mar, so as to put the victim in distress, and that it cannot be viewed as an indecent act because it did not reach the degree of causing sexual humiliation of the victim. The lower court acknowledged the credibility of the victim’s statement and rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In other words, the court below stated that "the victim was suffering from clothes in the police without her own location" (Article 2, No. 10, No. 2, No. 10, No. 2, of the evidence record), and that the court of the court below stated that the defendant did not go to the clothes in the front because he was closely related to the defendant (Article 42 of the public trial record). The defendant made the panty tyty of the victim to the middle of the buckbucks without any remarks from the victim's back, and directly took the victim's first her hand (Article 42 of the public trial record), 16 years old compared to the victim, and that the victim was suffering from any part at the time of the crime of this case by the police."