A. In light of the Defendant’s status, the specific contents of the Defendant’s statement, and the period and degree that affected the victims, etc., the prosecutor (unfair punishment) of the lower court’s fine (eight million won, sexual assault treatment program completion for 40 hours) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s speech and behavior, as indicated in the facts charged of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, merely offers a example related to gender to help students understand or raise interest in classes during class hours, and cannot be seen as sexual abuse based on sexual harassment. On different premise, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of all the facts charged of this case on a different premise is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s judgment erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (30) In order to promote gender-sensitiveness after the instant case, the Defendant’s gender-sensitive cyber education was completed, volunteer activities were conducted, etc., and the Defendant’s speech and behavior, such as the instant school juristic person, was subject to a disposition of suspension from duty for one month from W, and is expected not to return to the school position in the future.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. Article 1 of the Child Welfare Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to guarantee the welfare of children so that children can be born healthy and grow up happy and safely,” and Article 2 of the Child Welfare Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to ensure the welfare of children, so that children may grow up in a happy manner in a stable family environment.”

(2) Paragraph 2. The interest of children in all activities relating to children.