Defendant

Although the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts charged.

The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, despite the fact-finding that the defendant could be found to have inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the charge not guilty is erroneous by mistake

On April 3, 2015, which was the first trial date after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, the prosecutor appears to have asserted the “unfair punishment” as “unfair punishment,” but this is not a legitimate argument after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that, in full view of the victim’s statement and each statement of appraisal to the effect that “the victim’s statement was reliable and that DNA was detected in conformity with the Defendant’s NA around the victim’s entrance and chest,” the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim committed indecent act as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below.

The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the circumstances, such as the statements duly adopted and examined by the court below, and there was no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

With respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the degree of exercise of tangible power used in the instant crime is not limited.