A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not say that “Is and toyss are frighten and frighten in our house,” as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant only calculated a simple distance at the convenience store and did not have the intent to attract the victim.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court. As to this, the lower court, based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances: (a) the victim following the instant case’s investigation by the police and the prosecutor’s investigation by the police and the prosecution, and consistently stated to the effect that the Defendant Da and Does had sy and syed in our house; and (b) the victim’s ageed 5 years old, but does not seem to have falsely stated his opinion or experienced in light of the content of the statement from the investigative agency or the attitude of the statement in this court; (c) the father of the victim’s father did not appear from the investigative agency to this court to the victim’s place park, etc.; and (d) the victim was found to have been seated by the victim, who was living outside of this court, and returned to the original location, and thus, cannot be said to have been rashed by the Defendant and the Defendant’s desire after his ra.

In full view of the consistent statements of the victim, including the above statements, the finding of the father and the behavior of the victim, the response of the defendant to the claim of the father of the victim, etc., the defendant tried to attract the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the defendant.