Defendant B, F, G, M, and R shall be reversed.

Defendant

F. F. 7,00,000,000,000

2. The judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal by a prosecutor ex officio is that each of the crimes of this case constitutes a sex offense against a child or juvenile defined in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 11572, Dec. 18, 2012); and Article 13(1) of the same Act provides that where a person who has committed a sex offense against a child or juvenile is found guilty, an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a sexual assault treatment program shall be issued concurrently within 300 hours, unless there are special circumstances where an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a program cannot be imposed under Article 10 of the Criminal Act, and Article 13(2) of the same Act provides that an order to attend a lecture or order to complete a sex offense against a child or juvenile shall be issued concurrently within the period of suspension of the execution of a sentence; and where an order to complete a program is imposed concurrently, not the order to complete a sexual assault program under Article 9-2(1)4 of the Act.

However, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of each of the crimes of this case, and did not find any special circumstance in which the Defendants cannot be ordered to complete a program while sentencing a fine (no opinion is presented with regard to any special circumstance in which no order to complete a program is available) but omitted the imposition of an order to complete a program, and the order to complete a program is an incidental disposition that is sentenced simultaneously with the judgment of the sex offense case against children and juveniles. Therefore, the lower

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below against the defendants is examined as above.