A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In addition, the court below found the grounds for a request for retrial based on the summary of the grounds for appeal by defense counsel in accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which became final and conclusive, but the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the court below due to any cause not attributable to him/her. Therefore, the court below held that there are grounds for a

In a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant told the victim that he wraps another woman with the victim, and prevented the victim from sustaining his hand, and did not forcibly commit an indecent act against the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the fact that the defendant of unfair sentencing is aged 72 years of age, the beneficiary of basic livelihood is not in economic situation, and there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, the court below's sentence imposing orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 8 months and 40 hours of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the records on the existence of the grounds for the request for retrial, the court below served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and served a trial on June 2, 2016 when the defendant was absent, and sentenced to orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 8 months and 40 hours on the same day, and the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender on December 8, 2014 on the day of the instant case, and was arrested as a flagrant offender, and was released after being examined at the police. At the time, the defendant was living in a soup and was released at the police station, and was not used a cell phone. The defendant was not subject to additional investigation after his release, and the court below served a writ of summons, etc. to the above address and tried to find the location of the defendant.