The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that it is impossible for the Defendant to find out and suspend the Defendant’s seat and stop, and thus it is impossible for the Victim E to see the Victim E’s flaps or to flaps, and that it is difficult for the Defendant to take up the Victim E’s knee-flaps as the Defendant was knee-feling, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, it was difficult for the Defendant to do harm to the Victim E, as well as the Defendant did not do so. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged without examining the Defendant’s seat and stop, and kne-fe-flaps’s physical condition, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below consistently stated that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the victim F made a statement by her investigative agency, court of original trial, and this court’s ruling that “the Defendant was fluoring him to assault E, and the Defendant was fluoring her side or left buck with her drinking, and the Defendant was fluoring on the floor, and thereby fluoring him to commit an assault beyond the floor.” The victim E consistently stated to the effect that “the victim E was fluorily damaged by fluoring the Defendant’s fluor and fluoring him,” and that “the victim E was fluoring the Defendant’s fluor with fluorous hand on his ship and fluoring the Defendant’s face,” and that the victim E stated to the effect that “the Defendant was fluoring the victim’s face when considering F’s fluor and F as drinking by drinking.”