The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that this judgment has become final and conclusive.

Defendant

In addition, the accused and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter only referred to as the "defendant") have no intention to meet the sexual desire only to verify whether the victim with urology had shown urology or not, and have no intention to meet the sexual desire.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program, 5 years of information disclosure notice) is too unreasonable.

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

However, as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts on the part of the Defendant case, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail on the grounds of the “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, it is sufficiently justified, and this part of the judgment below does not seem to have erroneous determination of facts as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

We also examine the defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant by indecent act by inserting his hand into the panty of the victim, who is his relative, and the Defendant committed an indecent act by indecent act, even though he was in a position to protect the victim, in light of the method and contents of the crime, and the degree of damage, etc., such as indecent act committed by the victim who is only six years of age to meet his sexual desire, and further, it is obvious that the victim was committed by indecent act by the Defendant who was believed to have been committed by the victim, and that the Defendant did not seem to have a considerable mental impulse.