Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) The judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although Defendant 1 did not have intentionally committed an indecent act by force against the victim, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million, and an order to complete a sexual assault treatment program 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the determination of each of the grounds for appeal.

Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (amended by Act No. 15352, Jan. 16, 2018; Article 56(1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which uniformly provides for the restriction on employment of children and juveniles-related institutions, etc. for a period of ten years for each defendant of the case, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the risk of recidivism, etc., upon sentencing the punishment for each sex offense, the court has set a differential period of restriction on employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant of the case. Article 3 of the Addenda of the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 56 shall apply to persons who committed a sex offense before July 17, 2018, which is the date the above Act enters into force, and thus, the above amended Act shall also apply to this case.

However, in such a case, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this will be examined below.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

Therefore, it is true.