2. The crime of this case is committed against the defendant in light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim under the age of 13 was released from a male toilet that the defendant adhereded to female toilets, and was frightened to the chest of the above victim; and (b) the victim’s fear and sense of sexual humiliation at the time seems to have been considerable; and (c) sexual assault against children and juveniles, such as the crime of this case, may have a significant negative impact on the formation of the right to sexual self-determination based on untord sexual consciousness, and thus, (d) strict punishment and prevention are required.

On the other hand, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and seriously reflects his mistake, that there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant, and that there is an agreement with the victim.

In light of the above circumstances, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the grounds for suspending the sentence of a fine are insufficient, and the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too unreasonable (which is the maximum sentence to be mitigated). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.