The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

A. Defendant 1) Fact misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (guilty part in the judgment of the court below) did not commit each indecent act against the victims, and there is no credibility in each victim’s statement on this part.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In fact mistake (not guilty part in the judgment of the court below) victim B’s statement on this part is specific and consistent so it is possible to fully recognize credibility, but the court below rejected B’s statement and acquitted this part of the facts charged.

In the judgment of the court below, there is an error of mistake of facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (the part not guilty in the judgment below)

A. As to the facts charged in this part of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the act of minor's negligence under the age of 13) that the Defendant prompted the Defendant's sexual organ to the victim B from the first head of the crime (the reason for the judgment re-written on the guilty part) under the following, the lower court's judgment on this part of the charges that the Defendant prompteded the Defendant's sexual organ to the victim B, and prompted the Defendant's

On the other hand, not guilty of this part of the facts charged was pronounced.

- At the investigative agency and the lower court’s trial, B stated that “A student K, together with another student K, was victimized by the above injury from the Defendant between them” (Evidence record 37-42, page 63 of the trial record), and K stated that “A student K, together with B at that time, went to go to and from the trial record).” There is a conflict between different statements (No. 186 of the trial record). - The distance from the private teaching institute of this case to K from the private teaching institute of this case is 340 meters, and the distance from return is 4 minutes by Doz. (No. 186 of the trial record, page 458 of the evidence record).