However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 11, 2013, at around 22:30 on 22:30, the Defendant extracted the victim C (nive, 61 years of age) who returned home, and laid the vehicle into the D's health source operated by the Defendant in Southyang-si, and opened the scam in the above health source with the victim, and kidd the victim, kiddd the scam with the victim, kidd the scam and kid the face of the defendant, kid the victim, kid the victim, kid the victim, kid the victim, kid the defendant, kid the defendant, kid the victim from the above health source, and kid the victim in the parking lot in front of the above health source, and the victim continued to kid the victim, and kidd the victim, and kid the victim was the house of the victim

In addition, after about 10 minutes, the Defendant forced the victim to commit an indecent act on the part of the victim, such as opening the victim's house, leaving the victim's house, leaving the scam, kiscing the victim on a bridge, kiscing the victim on the bridge, leaving the kisc, and kiscing the victim on the scam.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Complaints and investigative reports (Statement of persons who have telephone conversationsd by a victim);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing victim photographs;

1. Article 298 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 16(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes committed by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel denies that no indecent act by force was committed against the victim, as in the facts constituting an offense. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s assertion on November 22, 2013