In this case, the defense witnesses investigated the clothes of the accused. They found wetness in the trousers of the second defendant and a spot of blood in his underwear, which was taken off and placed in front of the house of the first accused. After the police arrived and arrested of the second defendant, the second defendant confessed to the ownership of the clothing and admitted the defense evidence of the first defendant that he had done the crime. The judicial recognition outside the court is in force, and this was reinforced by the blood they found on his clothes, where he believed the blood came only because he was riding on the back of a donkey. When asked why the blood did not appear in the outer clothes, he mentioned nothing. There was the existence of genital hernia and redness in the vaginal edges, which was non-removal of the hymen. The statements of the prosecution and the victim have been contradicted because of their lack of awareness. She knows that the house belonged to the first accused Omar, who was sent by her mother to bring the ice blocks from his house, which makes the doubt interpreted in his favor. There was no charge against the second defendant at first even though he was in the house of the first accused and tried to accuse the first defendant when he said he saw the girl crying whilst coming out of the house and carrying ice blocks. The first defendant did not go to the store to fetch the lever as the first accused mentioned. However, the defense of the presence of wetness on the left, confirmed the confession of the second defendant to them what they did inside the first accused house. After the first defendant went to the store, he gave the ice blocks to her, and grabbed her by putting between his legs and taking off her dress, but did not enter his penis inside for fear of screaming. This confirms the statement of the victim in the interrogation minutes. He did not lie down and sleep with her as she said, because of her age and lack of awareness of her because she is four and a half years younger and studying kindergarten, but this confirms the existence of sexual harassment, with the presence of wetness on his clothes, the presence of sperm according to the medical report, and his presence now of the crime with the victim. He confessed to the witnesses of the first defense that he did so, and repented. And the presence of blood on his underwear, didn’t happen from riding a donkey, as he mentioned in his argument, which confirms he was lying. All evidence of circumstantial evidence and logic and confessed to the witnesses of the first defense that he is the perpetrator of the crime. The evidence of the medical report also confirms fully that he did so and described the crime, which corresponds with what the victim mentioned in the investigative record. This confirms beyond any doubt that he committed a crime under Article 45 / B of the Child Act 2010. This is enough to arrive at the decision of the crime; even though he used his finger to harm the victim as stated in the request for appeal. The court of the subject reached by its prudent decision according to the application of the law and the weight and the extraction of evidences. It has supported its decision of appeal with supervision and control. Since we are the court of law, it makes us engage in the detailed evidence and factors with need to clear the confusion between the accused, guilty and innocent, and intervene int the decision. The colleagues of the members of the circle agreed to the following 1/ Support of contested judgment. 2/ Abolition of the appeal. Signature of: Mustafa Abd Agadir Awad alkareem Seal of: The president of high court 30/6/2015