Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, the part of the judgment below regarding the attachment order case is excluded, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the case of the defendant.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim, the lower court convicted him of violating the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, i.e., ① the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the court of the lower court: (a) “The Defendant, who was going on a route from the malo distance located in the Sungnam-nam city of this Sungnam, agreed to brue bb,” and the Defendant got hamba

Does the victim and K will be drinking together with the defendant's "Iskn't we see."

“W,” with the Defendant’s consent, drink V, W, X together.

The defendant and V met together with male and female in the same manner, and they saw the taxi into the inn of the Dong in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

The defendant and the victim came to know about drinking and drinking together to commit fraud.

Defendant Mat A, on the road, left the victim's shoulder, and the victim was able to take the victim's shoulder, and the victim was able to take a bath and the defendant was able to take the care of the defendant.

The defendant sacrifies the victim's interest.