The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the Defendant, in a bath, inevitably divided the victim’s only talks with each other, and even though the Defendant did not wish to the victim as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in the instant case, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below and the court below, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim publicly insultingd was sexually insulting by putting the victim in the presence of another customer in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “the instant bath”) as stated in each of the facts charged. Thus, the defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

(1) The victim had consistently taken the bath from the Defendant within the bath of this case on the date and time stated in each of the facts charged from the investigative agency to the original trial.

The victim stated in the court of the court below that the defendant's abusive theory was written on his day, and the victim stated his day on the front.

2. F, G, H, I, etc., a member of the member accompanying the bath of this case, have been consistently present from an investigative agency to the original trial, and there was a fact from the investigative agency to the court below that the defendant had testifiedd to the victim as described in each of the facts charged in this case.

(3) The Defendant, on October 1, 2014, submitted a photograph of the public bath attendance card (No. 1) by asserting that it is the date on which the Defendant had no choice but to take the bath of this case. However, according to the witness F’s statement, the Defendant “public bath” is considered to be a public bath.