In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order were found guilty of all the charges on the grounds of the victim N,O, and the statement of the victim N,O on July 2010. (1) The violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Victim I (Indecent Act by a minor under the age of 13) and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter the Defendant) committed an indecent act by the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter the Defendant) on the part of the victim N,O, and I around 2010. (7.00.00.00.00.0.00.) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds of the victim N,O, and I’s non-liabilityless statements. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the facts.

(2) The court below found the defendant guilty and acquitted on the same facts charged that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim N orO in the name of S.M. in 2010 at the same time. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the reasoning.

B) Although the Defendant did not have committed emotional abuse against the students who were in charge of having committed a violation of each of the laws on child uniforms and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (child abuse by persons engaged in child welfare facilities, etc.), the Defendant was guilty of all of the charges on the grounds of the statement of the parents without credibility. The lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, who was in the middle of the 2010 p.m. by threatening the N orO, on which the Defendant reported to engage in Lone Star in the middle of the 2010 p.m.; and (b) the Defendant, on November 2010, committed an indecent act by force, by deceiving the Hebucks of I in the middle of the 2010 p.m.; and (c)

(ii)..