The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant was forced to get out of the bar line with the radar learning clothes worn by the Defendant at the time of the instant case; and (b) the Defendant did not have any intention to expose his sexual organ.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, E who has observed the Defendant’s act, revealing that the Defendant’s act was against the denial in the investigative agency and the lower court’s court.

He/she is off and exposed to a sexual organ.

“At the time of the statement to the effect that the circumstances were consistent, and ② the Defendant was aware of the fact that it was suitable for the wife at the main point.”

There is a fact that buckbucks are stored in them.

“The statement was made to the effect that it conforms to part of the E’s statement (the 33,34th page of the investigation record) and the statement, and ③ the Defendant initially entered the investigative agency to verify whether he had first raised H, i.e., the president of the fake.

In short, even under the influence of a little alcohol;

It is true that the posture has not been memoryd, but we now have been ever in the long run of Nara.

It is pointed out from investigators that the Defendant continued to remain at the scene of the crime, and, as the case so, it is the same as the fact that the Defendant entered the place in which the Defendant had been found in the crime, and that the Defendant was fluort with the fact that he had been found in the usual.

In full view of the fact that “The Defendant had changed his statement with “(33 side of investigation records)” (the Defendant, even if her statement was made by the Defendant, was drunk and was unable to accurately memory the situation at the time of the instant crime, and that “the Defendant had flown at low price” was difficult to believe the Defendant’s defense, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.