Although there is a little k's k's awareness of facts (the violation of the Child Welfare Act (the coercion of a child's sexual harassment, etc.)) by a defense counsel (the k's k's k's k's k's k'ss k's k's k's k's k's k's k'

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by admitting a guilty guilty of violating the Child Welfare Act (hereinafter “Child’s sexual harassment”).

In light of the fact that the criminal defendant of unreasonable sentencing recognized the error of committing the crime of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), the mother of the victim and the victim expressed their intention not to have the criminal defendant punished, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, etc., the sentence of the court below ordering orders to complete the sexual assault treatment program for eight months and forty hours is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by using verbal violence, such as committing sexual abuse, such as entering the victim’s residence in violation of ad hoc measure order issued in a home protection case and taking a serious bath, etc., it is not good that the Defendant committed the instant crime. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s denial of the crime does not reflect the mistake while denying the crime, and that the Defendant was limited to allowing the victim to give testimony favorable to the Defendant in the court of original instance, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Judgment

The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the defense counsel's assertion of mistake, i.e., the victim, who is consistently under investigation by the investigative agency, shall be punished for severe humiliation and suffering by the victim who refuses to take a key like the facts charged.