The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant “welve” refers to “welves if we need to do so,” and it stated that D’s hand trees are bottomed, or they are too close to other money exchange, and it was not in contact with the intent to commit an indecent act, but it did not contain words and actions as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair considering the result of the first instance court’s examination and the result of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s judgment without permission on the ground that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009). In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court directly summond D and examined the facts that the Defendant committed an indecent act and found the lower court’s judgment clearly unlawful.

G The legal statement of the original trial of the G is an act written in the facts charged.