The defendant shall be ordered to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours.

On October 24, 2015, the Defendant, around 05:24, 05:24, committed an indecent act by reporting the victim E (n, 10 years of age) (hereinafter “victim E”) who was divingd in the sobry soup room in Gwangju Northern-gu, and committing an indecent act. The Defendant, upon entering the victim’s earth and sand plant into the part of the victim’s clothes, stored the hand in the victim’s clothes and detained both chests.

Accordingly, the defendant committed indecent acts against the victim who is under 13 years of age by taking advantage of the impossibility of resistance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes stating stenographic records;

1. Article 7 (4) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and the elective Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and Article 299 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the grounds for sentencing).

1. The main sentence of Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to Order;

1. Where comprehensively considering the extent and expected side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the disclosure order or notification order, the preventive effect of a sexual crime subject to registration, and the effect of protecting the victim from a sexual crime subject to registration, such as Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the proviso to Article 49(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (including the Defendant’s age, family environment, and risk of recidivism), etc., the Defendant’s age, and the risk of recidivism, etc., as well as the overall consideration of the following:

3) Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant entered the earth digging in which the victim was the victim, but the defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim.

2. The victim was determined by the police that “the victim was deemed to have been removed, but the victim was her body with himself/herself.”

Therefore, it is seeable that the proposal is.