A. There was no intention to commit an indecent act against the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won as a fine) is too minor or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged the same purport in the judgment of the court below as to a mistake of fact, and the court below rejected the above argument in a detailed statement of the judgment. Considering the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, it can sufficiently be recognized that the act of indecent act as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below and the defendant's intent as to it can be sufficiently recognized. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law that affected the judgment

Defendant’s assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime on the argument of unfair sentencing.

On the other hand, it is an unfavorable circumstance that the defendant did not recognize his fault from the investigative agency to the trial of the party, and it seems that the defendant did not know about the victim properly.

In full view of such various circumstances as the degree of indecent act in this case, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to be excessively light or unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

We cannot accept the argument of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendant.

3. The lower court determined that the exemption from employment restriction (ex officio determination) was exempt from an employment restriction order against child and juvenile-related institutions, etc. on the same ground as stated in the reasoning of the judgment.

However, the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities amended after the judgment of the court below was rendered on December 2018.