A. Although the Defendant asserted only the misunderstanding of facts on the grounds of appeal in the statement of reasons for appeal, the Defendant’s assertion is based on not only the misunderstanding of facts but also the misunderstanding of legal principles, and the Defendant’s assertion is examined together.

1) Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the decision of the court below is merely the defendant who tried to put the victim in distress and did not intend to sexually abuse the victim.

2) Article 2-A of the decision of the court below, Paragraph (b) of the decision of the court below, although the defendant was at the time of the victim as stated in Item 2-A and Paragraph (b) of the decision of the court below, it was done at the samib and thus does not constitute physical abuse

3) No. 2-C. as stated in the holding of the court below’s judgment, the Defendant did not have the victim as stated in paragraph 2-C of the judgment below.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 7,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles 1) "sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment, which causes a sense of sexual shame to a child" under Article 17 subparagraph 2 of the Child Uniforms Land Act refers to sexual harassment, etc. that causes a sense of sexual humiliation to a child, which may harm a child's health or welfare or impede normal development, and includes sexual assault that does not reach the degree of sexual assault in cases where it is likely to seriously impede a complete and harmonious development of personality, such as creating a child's sound sexual values (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do3448, Jun. 15, 2017), which is duly adopted and duly examined by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do348, Jun. 15, 2017).

As stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below against the victim, the victim's sexual organ was heard, and the victim's friendly G opened a door.