In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Juvenile Rape, etc.) and intimidation are crimes of anti-psying. However, around September 201, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, and by failing to render a judgment dismissing the prosecution of the above part of the facts charged, even though the agreement was submitted in the court below, which only agreed with the parent of parental authority over the victim and the legal representative of

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in this case, the part concerning attempted rape against the victim on November 2008 is a crime falling under Article 7(5) of the former Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (wholly amended by Act No. 9765 of Jun. 9, 2009), and cannot be punished against the victim’s express intent under Article 16 of the same Act. In addition, the part concerning intimidation against the victim on April 1, 201, among the facts charged in this case, constitutes a crime falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and also constitutes a crime of non-violation of will under Article 283(3) of the same Act. 2) In order to recognize the victim’s expression of intent not to punish or withdrawal of his/her wish to punish, the part concerning intimidation against the victim should be clearly and objectively expressed in a manner that the victim’s actual intent and helps the victim to punish (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do819, Jun. 19, 2019).