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

1. On October 24, 2012, the Defendant committed the crime of October 24, 2012: (a) at the main point of “C” operated by the Defendant on October 24, 2012, the victim D, an employee of the said main point, reported that he is cleaning for business closure; (b) in order for the victim to commit an indecent act against the said female, the victim is “a person like sports news,” and the victim is “a person with the victim’s chest”, and was placed on the part of the victim by force on the part of the victim, and committed an indecent act by force against the female, such as failing his body, as he seems to have committed a sexual act on the part of the female.

2. On November 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the Defendant’s residence located in Yasan-si, Yasan-si, 102, 302, and 302, on November 1, 2012, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the Defendant by: (b) reporting the victim, who had worked in the Defendant’s house at the Defendant’s request, such as his/her daily behaviors and alcohol, with the Defendant’s awareness that he/she would commit an indecent act against the said female in a timely manner; (c) forcing the victim to put the victim’s injury on his/her own hand; and (d) forcing the victim to put his/her chest on one time

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 298 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 16(2) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed by the Defendant under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012) was that the Defendant repeatedly committed an indecent act against the victim who was an employee of the main place that he operated, and the degree and content of the indecent act is not less and less that of the indecent act. The victim, who was a university student of the age 21, at the time, appears to have suffered a large mental shock, but has not been able to commit a serious death or make efforts to recover damage, and the Defendant is against this law.