Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not commit an indecent act against C by the complainant as stated in the facts charged.

B. Even if the sentencing is found to be guilty, the sentence of the lower court (3 million won in punishment, and 40 hours in order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's argument of reasons for appeal prior to the determination of ex officio.

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 shall set a differential period of employment within the scope of ten years for each defendant of the case. Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act provides that Article 56 of the Act 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, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined in the following B.

B. The Defendant, even in the lower court, argued the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by clearly explaining the judgment in detail.

The evidence that the court below duly admitted and investigated by the evidence is different from the circumstances that the court below specifically explained.